The recent eDiscovery failures at Wells Fargo and at the Department of Justice show that eDiscovery mistakes and failures happen even at the largest corporations and government agencies. Here’s your chance to learn from their mistakes.
read moreThe security of data is fast becoming one of the most prominent and visible areas of concern in the selection of eDiscovery software solutions. With public examples of data security failures increasing in regularity and impact, it behooves any discovery solution decision maker to carefully consider how they manage this important risk factor and make decisions based on facts.
read moreWe’re about three weeks out from this year’s Relativity Fest conference, conducted every year by Kcur, uh, Relativity (sorry, old habits die hard). Relativity Fest is an annual conference designed to educate and connect the eDiscovery community and features over 160 panel discussions, as well as hands-on labs, breakout sessions, and insights from Relativity staff, Relativity users, and industry leaders. Here are some of the highlights of the upcoming conference.
read moreForget the glittering generalities of opinioned providers and professionals trying to champion a particular approach to eDiscovery at the exclusion of others. The reality is that on-premise and off-premise solutions delivered as part of both emerging and mature technology implementations are and will continue to be a fundamental piece of any eDiscovery software portfolio if an organization wants to address the areas of security, capability, complexity, and cost comprehensively.
read moreIn Barry v. Big M Transportation, Inc., et al., Alabama Chief Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the plaintiffs’ request for default judgment sanctions for failing to preserve a tractor-trailer involved in an automobile accident and its “Electronic Data/Electronic Control Module (ECM) Vehicle Data Recorder/Black Box” and the data associated with the ECM device. As an alternative sanction, Judge Ott indicated the intent to tell the jury that the ECM data was not preserved and to allow the parties to present evidence and argument at trial regarding the defendant’s failure to preserve the data.
read moreNot only are the first days after a complaint is filed critical to managing the eDiscovery requirements of the case efficiently and cost-effectively, you need to do some prep even before the case is filed. With a scheduling order required within 120 days of the complaint and a Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference required at least 21 days before that, there’s a lot to do and a short time to do it. Where do you begin? Find out today!
read moreThis ACEDS-hosted, CLE-approved webcast session discusses different on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solution options and considerations for each.
read moreTomorrow, Tom O’Connor and I will discuss the various issues to consider and decisions to be made to help you meet your discovery obligations in an efficient and proportional manner when preparing for the Rule 26(f) conference in the webcast Holy****, The Case is Filed! What Do I Do Now? (noon CT). One of the topics relates to an order you can file to avoid non-waiver of privilege for inadvertent disclosures. If you missed it before, let’s revisit the topic now.
read moreAfter Tom O’Connor and I hosted the webcast On Premise or Off Premise? A Look At Security Approaches to eDiscovery where we discussed the pros and cons of on premise and off premise (i.e., cloud) solutions last month, I received a question from an attendee afterward, as follows: Isn’t another advantage of on premise solutions the ability to load large amounts of data from multiple custodians (i.e., multiple terabytes) to the eDiscovery platform? Not necessarily.
read moreIn Mann, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al, Illinois Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the defendant to include certain custodians in their email search, ordering the defendant to search emails of five additional custodians (including the Mayor of Chicago), but not requiring the defendant to search emails for an additional three custodians requested by the plaintiff. Judge Rowland also denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, finding that the defendant’s conduct was not sanctionable.
read more