Our Insights on eDiscovery

Read on to learn more about the latest trends and insights in the world of digital discovery.
Close
Enter your
text here
When Litigation Hits, The First 7 to 10 Days is Critical: eDiscovery Replay
 When Litigation Hits, The First 7 to 10 Days is Critical: eDiscovery Replay 648 348 CloudNine

When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.

read more
Improving your eDiscovery Vocabulary is as Easy as 123: eDiscovery Replay
 Improving your eDiscovery Vocabulary is as Easy as 123: eDiscovery Replay 648 348 CloudNine

Want to be better equipped to speak the “lingo” of eDiscovery and understand what you’re saying? Here’s a glossary that can help.

read more
Other Production Parameters from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay
 Other Production Parameters from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay 648 348 CloudNine

Yesterday, we began to discuss some of the production parameters that CloudNine collects from our clients in order to ensure that the production includes the correct documents in the required format. But, wait – there’s more! Let’s take a look at some other examples of information we collect from our clients.

read more
Production from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay
 Production from a Provider’s Point of View: eDiscovery Replay 648 348 CloudNine

We sometimes forget that the end goal of the discovery process is production: to produce responsive electronically stored information (ESI) to opposing counsel. But, do you realize how many parameters and potential permutations there can be to the production process? Let’s take a look.

read more
Plaintiff Can Review Documents Deemed as Non-Responsive, But Has to Bear its Own Costs: eDiscovery Case Week
 Plaintiff Can Review Documents Deemed as Non-Responsive, But Has to Bear its Own Costs: eDiscovery Case Week 532 353 CloudNine

In Nachurs Alpine Solutions, Corp. v. Banks, Iowa Chief Magistrate Judge C. J. Williams granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel ESI discovery, by ordering the defendants to produce all of the ESI documents it identified as unresponsive under an Attorneys Eyes Only label and that the plaintiff bear its own costs of reviewing the documents for the categories it believes may hold relevant documents.

read more
Webcast: On Premise or Off Premise? A Look at Security Approaches to eDiscovery (August 30, 2017)
 Webcast: On Premise or Off Premise? A Look at Security Approaches to eDiscovery (August 30, 2017) 150 150 CloudNine

This CLE-approved* webcast session will discuss different on-premise and off-premise eDiscovery solution options and considerations for each.

read more
Court Grants Most of Plaintiff’s Cost Recovery Request, Including All eDiscovery Costs: eDiscovery Case Week
 Court Grants Most of Plaintiff’s Cost Recovery Request, Including All eDiscovery Costs: eDiscovery Case Week 532 353 CloudNine

In Ariel Inv., LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC, Illinois District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly granted the prevailing plaintiff’s request to tax most requested costs in the amount of $99,378.32, including the entire amount ($85,666.51) requested for reimbursement for eDiscovery costs.

read more
Today’s the Day to Learn How Recent eDiscovery Case Law Has Affected Your Organization: eDiscovery Case Week
 Today’s the Day to Learn How Recent eDiscovery Case Law Has Affected Your Organization: eDiscovery Case Week 532 353 CloudNine

eDiscovery Case Week continues. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. Nowhere is that truer than with legal precedents set by past case law decisions, especially when it relates to eDiscovery best practices. Are you aware of recent case law decisions related to eDiscovery best practices and what that those decisions mean to your organization?

read more
Defendant Not Sanctioned Despite Use of Evidence Wiping Software: eDiscovery Case Week
 Defendant Not Sanctioned Despite Use of Evidence Wiping Software: eDiscovery Case Week 532 353 CloudNine

In HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers, Georgia District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. denied the plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference sanctions despite evidence that the defendant had used evidence wiping software twice after being ordered to produce her personal computer, stating that the plaintiff “offers only bare speculation that any of its trade secrets or other data were actually transferred” to the defendant’s laptop.

read more
Court Rules that Plaintiff’s Request for Data from Defendant is “Extraordinarily Burdensome”: eDiscovery Case Week
 Court Rules that Plaintiff’s Request for Data from Defendant is “Extraordinarily Burdensome”: eDiscovery Case Week 532 353 CloudNine

In Solo v. United Parcel Services Co., Michigan Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen agreed that the defendant showed that the level of data requested by the plaintiff “would be extraordinarily burdensome” and ordered the parties to discuss the defendant’s proposed methodology and “meet, confer, and agree on a mutually acceptable sampling methodology” if the plaintiff did not agree to the defendant’s approach.

read more