In Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., New York Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel in part, ordering the defendant to search for 16,000 loan numbers proposed by the plaintiffs’ and ordered the parties to split the costs for performing the searches.
read moreRemember the Microsoft Ireland Warrant case, where the Second Circuit reversed earlier rulings and denied the government’s efforts to compel Microsoft to provide emails in that case? It may not be over yet. And, millions of Verizon customer records have been exposed in a security lapse.
read moreFor the past several years, the ABA Journal has published a list of the 100 best legal blogs. They are requesting input again this year, but, with a twist. This year, they are expanding the scope of their annual year-end feature beyond legal blogs to also include the best of lawyers’ websites, podcasts and social media. As a result, they’re renaming it the ABA Journal Web 100.
read moreIn a lawsuit filed by DTI against LDiscovery and four former sales agents of DTI who were hired by LDiscovery, claiming they misappropriated trade secrets, interfered with client relationships and breached their contracts, an opinion provided by New York District Judge Jed S. Rakoff last week detailed his rejection of all arguments by DTI that led to his denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 16.
read moreIn eDiscovery business, are you swept away with optimism or feeling under water? Voice your opinion in the latest quarterly eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey! This time, it’s the Summer 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site. It’s the second year of the quarterly survey and we’ve covered every round of the survey so far. Now, it’s time for the Summer 2017 Survey!
read moreThe 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 moreLast month, we discussed whether to perform keyword search culling before performing Predictive Coding/Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and, like many have concluded before (even a judge in FCA US, LLC v. Cummins, Inc.), we agree that you shouldn’t perform keyword search culling before TAR. But, should TAR be performed instead of keyword search – in all cases? Is TAR always preferable to keyword search?
read moreThis CLE-approved webcast session will cover key case law covered by the eDiscovery Daily blog related to eDiscovery for the first half of 2017.
read moreIn Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., North Carolina Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., among other rulings, denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting a jury instruction in response to the defendant’s failure to preserve certain internet web browser and search histories, concluding that the plaintiff “is not entitled to a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1)” and that the plaintiff “is not entitled to an adverse jury instruction as a sanction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2).”
read moreThis may be the shortest title ever in this history of this blog. In the first year of the blog’s existence (when we had a lot fewer subscribers and readers than we do now), we did a three part series on how to perform an iterative random sample of a search result set to evaluate the results. As we have discussed the topic recently in two webinars, I thought I would revisit it here for those who didn’t attend the webinars (though you can still check them out on demand) and weren’t readers of our blog back then.
read more