Close
Enter your
text here

EDRM

For the Fifth Year, Florida is the Place to Be for eDiscovery Education: eDiscovery Trends

The fifth annual University of Florida E-Discovery Conference is coming up one week from today, on March 30, and you can attend even if you don’t plan to be in the state of Florida on that day.

Not surprisingly, given the new technology CLE requirement in Florida, the focus of the conference this year is competence in 2017.  As the conference site notes, it’s “no longer your grandfather’s e-discovery (circa 2005). There are exciting new e-discovery tools, new offerings and huge new challenges against a backdrop of increasing demands for competence by judicial officials.”

Notable speakers include Craig Ball, George Socha of BDO Consulting, David Horrigan of kCura, Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, Mary Mack of ACEDS, Kenya Dixon of the FTC, Corey Lee of Hunton & Williams and Sonya Strnad from Holland & Knight.  Not to mention a number of federal and state judges, including U.S. Magistrates William Matthewman, Anthony Porcelli, and Gary Jones, Florida Circuit Court Judge Meenu Sasser, and retired Florida Circuit Court Judge Ralph Artigliere.

The conference includes topics ranging from cloud/social media/mobile devices preservation to collections on a budget to meet and confer to defending your keyword search.  The use of artificial intelligence for document review is explored, as well as efficient and reliable document review using contemporary tools.  The day ends with a judicial panel where federal and state judges discuss what they now expect from clients and attorneys.  A link to the Agenda is here.

For the first time, the University of Florida Levin College of Law is also sponsoring an E-Discovery CareerFest to respond to the growing interest of University of Florida law students in exploring career paths that involve electronic discovery and data analytic skills.  The CareerFest will be conducted the day before the main conference, Wednesday, March 29, from 3:00 to 5:30PM ET.

The 2017 UF Law E-Discovery Conference has been approved for 6 General, 6 Technology and 1 Ethics CLE credits by the Florida Bar.  If you plan to attend in person, the event will once again take place at the University of Florida Levin College of Law campus.  But, if you can’t attend in person, the event will also (once again) be streamed online.

The conference costs $199 to attend in person or $99 to attend via livestream.  Members of the 8th Judicial Circuit Bar Association, ACEDS and Friends of the conference are eligible to receive a discounted rate.  The conference is free to attend in person or via livestream to all employees of federal and state government agencies, judges and judicial staff, students, and academics.  To register for the conference, click on the “Register Now” link on the conference web site here.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending the conference?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM Releases New Security Questionnaire: eDiscovery Trends

As promised when they announced the project last August, EDRM announced last week the release of a new Security Audit Questionnaire, which is designed to be a practical tool for evaluating the security capabilities of corporations, law firms, cloud providers, and third parties offering electronic discovery or managed services.

The security survey evaluates an organization’s data security and practices, allowing potential customers to assess the risk of entrusting sensitive data to the vendor. The tool can be used to assess data protection from destruction or unauthorized access, as well as to assure regulatory compliance with data-related legislation such as HIPAA, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and security breach notification laws.

The evaluation allows the assessor to determine the level of risk the organization may be assuming by engaging the vendor or partner and to make suggestions to improve security practices and enhance the service provided.  The tool is also suited for organizations who wish to conduct a self-audit to assess security capabilities and identify areas for improvement.

The seven security disciplines addressed in the audit questionnaire include 74 separate criteria, as follows:

  • General Security (2 questions)
  • Security and Risk Management (17 questions)
  • Asset Security (5 questions)
  • Communications and Network Security (23 questions)
  • Identity and Access Management (10 questions)
  • Security Operations (15 questions)
  • Software Development Security (2 questions)

The rank scale is dependent on the category, as some categories have “yes/no” questions only and others have a rank scale from 1 to 10.  Each question allows for recording of additional notes and a summary sheet keeps track of the scores across the seven security disciplines.

A team of EDRM members representing e-discovery providers, corporate legal, and law firms convened in August 2016 to discuss security and compliance requirements and create a plan for the Security Audit Questionnaire.  Amy Sellars, assistant general counsel, litigation support for Walmart Legal, and Julie Hackler, account executive at Avansic, led the team of 14 professionals with backgrounds in e-discovery, security, IT technologies, and litigation support in creating the tool. Over several months of collaborative effort, the team identified the seven key security areas for audit, developed checklists and audit questions, and built and tested the questionnaire.

“E-discovery increasingly involves very large volumes of potentially sensitive data, and multiple organizations may play a role in processing, hosting, review and production of documents,” said George Socha, EDRM co-founder. “It’s critical that decision makers assess the security capabilities of e-discovery providers, and the questionnaire was designed to guide that assessment.”

A copy of the questionnaire can be downloaded from the EDRM/Duke Law website here.

So, what do you think of the questionnaire?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

George Socha of BDO: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fourth of the 2017 Legaltech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY (aka Legalweek) this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.

Today’s thought leader is George Socha of BDO.  Co-founder of EDRM, George is a Managing Director in BDO Consulting’s Forensic Technology Services practice. Named an “E-Discovery Trailblazer” by The American Lawyer, he assists corporate, law firm, and government clients with all facets of electronic discovery, including information governance, domestically and globally. Prior to joining BDO, George spent 16 years as a litigation attorney in private practice before starting his own consulting firm focused on e-discovery issues in 2003. He received his law degree from Cornell Law School and his undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

What are your observations about LTNY this year and how it compared to other LTNY shows that you have attended?

ALM made several changes this year:  Legalweek, not just Legaltech, and an entry fee for the exhibit hall.  I gather traffic in the exhibit hall was down from last year; maybe that meant fewer people just showing up for free stuff or perhaps there were fewer serious shoppers as well.  From what I heard, sessions generally were well attended.  If ALM was hoping for a re-energized Legaltech, I don’t think they got there.

Some years, Legaltech is abuzz with the newest catchphrase, such as “early case assessment” or “predictive coding.”  No pithy phrase left to the fore this year.  There was, however, a recurring theme.  Growing concerns over cybersecurity seemed drive a level of interest in and lend a degree of urgency to information governance in a way we have not seen in the past.  A major problem, folks seemed to say, was the security of data.  A way to help address that problem, better governance of the data.  Part of the means for achieving better governance, turning to eDiscovery tools and techniques.

This past year was an important year for EDRM with the acquisition of EDRM by the Duke University School of Law.  What was the driving force behind the decision for EDRM to be acquired by Duke and how do you think it will impact where EDRM goes from here?

For several years, Tom Gelbmann and I had been looking for a new home for EDRM.  Tom was ready to retire.  I did not want to run EDRM on my own.  And in any event, it was time and past to find an established institution that could provide for a more solid future than any one, two or three individuals could do.

Last year, we were put in touch with the folks at Duke.  From the first discussion it looked like a good match, and I am pleased to be able to say that the first months have gone well.   Tom is now fully retired and Duke is now been taking over the operation of EDRM.  While Tom may be fully retired, I continue to be very actively involved in EDRM and will be for the foreseeable future.

Duke will hold an EDRM workshop this spring, as we have in the past.  The focus of that workshop will be on 1) developing Technology Assisted Review (TAR) standards, both for the bench and the bar, 2) beginning development of standards for data analytics across all phases of the EDRM diagram, and 3) working on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) issues, particularly development of the US code of conduct.  Most likely, there will be a couple more activities as well.  The conference will be at Duke (May 15 through 17) and it will follow much the same format as we have used in the past.

Duke can bring to bear a depth and breadth of resources Tom and I never could match, opening up opportunities that we lacked the bandwidth to pursue.  For example, this fall Duke will convene a conference in September, at the Duke Law School, focusing on the TAR standards under development.  In addition, Duke just launched a rebuilt EDRM website, with a new look and better navigation.

One recent trend we’ve seen is with regard to an emphasis on technology competence for attorneys and we’re up to 26 states that have adopted some sort of technology competence requirement, with Florida being the first state that has required technology CLE for their attorneys.  Do you think the increased emphasis on technology competence will change the general lack of understanding of technology within the legal profession?

I would so much like to be able to say “yes, I think those efforts will accomplish those goals”.  However, I’m not so certain how successful they really will be.  CLE requirements are met by attendance, not by demonstrating competence.  Simply to mandate attendance at a CLE by itself is not sufficient to ensure increased competence.

It also is not clear, to me at least, that there is any consensus as to what constitutes technological competence.  Are we talking about the ability for a lawyer to write a document himself or herself using a word processing program?  Or are we talking about an ability for a lawyer to handle the technological components of certain parts of the eDiscovery process?  Are we saying that lawyers ought to be able to make forensically sound copies of the contents of a hard drive?  Are we saying that they are to understand at some level what it means to make forensically sound copies of a hard drive?  Or are we talking about some other level of technological competence?

Another recent trend we’ve seen is a move toward SaaS automation, with not only certain providers making a splash by offering SaaS automation technology, but also “big boys” in the industry (such as kCura and Ipro) moving toward offering their own SaaS automation solutions.  What do you think the move toward automation will mean for the eDiscovery space?

“Automation” means many different things, depending upon which portion of the eDiscovery and larger legal technology space you focus on.  SaaS automation is only a piece.  For some time now, providers have been automating portions of the eDiscovery process, such as relying on automated steps to facility loading data into a platform, for example, or using TAR to improve the review workflow.  We only will see more of this.

We are beginning to see more effective use of data analytics at all stages of the EDRM diagram, from information governance through presentation.  Similarly, I think we are going to see more and more effective use of artificial intelligence across the full spectrum.  You can take that same concept and expand it out further. It’s not only for eDiscovery, but for all facets of the practice of law.  There are a growing number of people and organizations that are trying to figure out how technology can enhance what lawyers and their support staff are capable of doing.

In addition to what we’ve discussed about EDRM, what are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Perhaps not surprisingly a significant part of my focus these days is the use of data analytics across all phases of the EDRM model as well as in related areas, such as information governance and cybersecurity.  It is not man versus machine; it is people and technology working together.

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM Rolls Out a New Website: eDiscovery Trends

When I interviewed George Socha for the seventh annual Legaltech thought leader interview series (which we will publish tomorrow), one thing he mentioned was the EDRM is rolling out a new web site.  Last week, the new site was officially rolled out and the logo reflects EDRM’s new home at Duke Law.

As they indicated in the email announcement to EDRM subscribers, “Our goal was to make the site faster and easier to use. To do that, we reorganized some content, streamlined the site’s structure, and removed out-of-date items. If you have any trouble finding something, please email us at EDRM@law.duke.edu.  We do have access to the old site, and we should be able to help you quickly locate whatever you need.”

The announcement also noted that they are in the process of rebuilding the members section of the site, so old logins are no longer functional. The announcement indicated that they will send login information to all current members later this month.  In addition to the benefits that members have received in the past, they also will receive other new benefits, such as discounts for Duke Conference registrations and Judicature subscriptions.

As for resources available to everyone, the site provides sections to access Frameworks & Standards (including, of course, the EDRM model, as well as other models) as well as a Resources section to access Budget Calculators, Glossaries and Datasets (among other resources).

Naturally, since eDiscovery Daily is the only publication that is an EDRM Education partner and since links to our posts were published on the old site, I was interested to see where they would be on the new site.  They’re in the News section on the eDiscovery Daily page here.

The new site certainly looks more up to date and more intuitive.  And, it clearly reflects a changing of the guard with the move over to Duke Law.  Tomorrow, you’ll hear more about the transition from EDRM’s co-founder himself!

So, what do you think?  Will the acquisition by Duke Law be a positive influence for EDRM?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

MAJOR Announcement from EDRM!: eDiscovery Trends

After over 11 years establishing itself as the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery market, EDRM has been acquired!

As they announced in their press release here yesterday, Duke University School of Law has acquired EDRM.  The release stated: “The move advances the missions of both organizations. For EDRM, Duke provides an institutional home with a large and respected organization, ensuring the continued vitality of EDRM. Duke Law and its Center for Judicial Studies gain resources that expand the center’s involvement in electronic discovery and information governance in support of its mission to promote better understanding of the judicial process and to generate ideas for improving the administration of justice.”

“This agreement sets the stage for an expansion of EDRM efforts in industry education and standards,” stated Dean David F. Levi in the press release. “E-discovery is a major component of today’s litigation practice, and EDRM provides valuable resources to educate not only experienced practitioners, but also law students and new lawyers about practical discovery problems they will encounter. This acquisition is also an important step in Duke’s continued efforts to bring together the judiciary, legal practitioners, educators and government organizations to advance the understanding of the judicial process and improve the complex processes in the administration of justice.”

“We are proud of the significant impact EDRM has made on education and practices in electronic discovery and information governance since 2005,” stated George Socha, co-founder of EDRM. “The achievements of EDRM are a direct result of the hard work of many legal and technology practitioners whose efforts and expertise have improved e-discovery and information governance practices and ultimately the judicial process. Tom Gelbmann and I extend to each of them our sincere appreciation, and we encourage continued participation in this exciting next phase with Duke Law.”

Socha will remain with EDRM after the acquisition. EDRM co-founder Gelbmann plans to work with Duke Law for the transition of EDRM programs and will retire later this year. “We are fortunate,” stated Levi, “that Tom Hnatowski, former chief of the Magistrate Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, agreed to join the Judicial Studies Center to manage day-to-day operations running EDRM. Tom brings a wealth of experience and a unique perspective to the improvement of the administration of justice with his many years working with U.S. magistrate judges, the front-line judicial officers who handle discovery issues on a daily basis.”

An email providing details was sent to all EDRM members on Tuesday evening in advance of Wednesday’s public announcement.  In a follow-up response to queries from EDRM members, Socha noted that the “good work” being performed on existing projects “will continue under Duke Law.  Not only will it continue, but we hope to be able to expand it.”  And, he also indicated that “EDRM under Duke will continue to be open to existing members’ contributions”, which “always have been at the core of what has made EDRM successful – indeed, of interest to anyone.”

Hopefully, it sounds as though the acquisition will enable EDRM to continue to provide useful standards models and mechanisms to the industry, even though the day-to-day leadership will change.  As an EDRM Education partner, eDiscovery Daily will certainly continue to provide eDiscovery news and analysis as we always have and will certainly make our readers aware of new deliverables from the EDRM community.

From a personal standpoint, I’m certainly glad to see that George Socha will remain with EDRM, even as he continues in his new role at BDO.  I’m also certainly sad to see Tom Gelbmann retire soon as I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him as a colleague within EDRM through the years – he is truly as nice a guy as there is and I will miss working with him.  Nonetheless, it certainly sounds as though George and Tom found a good new home for the organization that they created 11 years ago – one that should enable it to continue to thrive for years to come.

So, what do you think?  Will the acquisition of EDRM be a good thing for the eDiscovery industry?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM Isn’t THE WORD, It’s 300 Pages of Words (Terms): eDiscovery Best Practices

As I fly back home to flooded Houston after an enjoyable and successful ACEDS conference (and try to type this while the guy in front of me insists on reclining his seat), it’s worth noting that other stuff is going on too.  One notable item from this week is that EDRM released (or should I say re-released) its Glossary of Terms.

While the Glossary existed before, it wasn’t previously available in a downloadable PDF format.  Now it is.  It doesn’t just provide terms from “A” to “Z” – it provides terms from “1” – i.e., SEC Rule 10b(5) – to “.E” – i.e., .Ex01 File.  317 total pages of defined terms in all, with some described in just a sentence and others described over as much as a page.  The Glossary not only provides a detailed definition of each term, it also identifies the source of that term and its definition.  Examples:

  • While you might think “Bag and Tag” (page 24) is what I did with my luggage when I got to the airport today, it’s actually defined as “The process of receiving, recording, and securing client source data as evidence. The first link in the chain of custody.” (come to think of it, that’s pretty similar)
  • While you might think that “Comic Mode” (page 54) is something that a comedian goes into before a show, it’s actually defined as “Human-readable data, recorded on a strip of film which can be read when the film is moved horizontally to the reader.”
  • While you might think that a “Family Range” (page 114) is land owned by a wealthy Texas rancher, it’s actually defined as “the range of documents from the first Bates production number assigned to the first page of the top most parent document through the last Bates production number assigned to the last page of the last child document.”

Get the idea?

In downloadable and easily searchable form, it can serve as a handy reference if you run across a term that you’re not familiar with during your discovery activities.

EDRM also provides six specialized glossaries that you can reference for specific subsets (these terms and others are also included in the main downloadable glossary).  They are:

  • EDRM Collection Standards Glossary: The EDRM Collection Standards Glossary is a glossary of terms defined as part of the EDRM Collection Standards.
  • EDRM Metrics Glossary: The EDRM Metrics Glossary contains definitions for terms used in connection with the updated EDRM Metrics Model published in June 2013.
  • EDRM Search Glossary: The EDRM Search Glossary is a list of terms related to searching ESI.
  • EDRM Search Guide Glossary: The EDRM Search Guide Glossary is part of the EDRM Search Guide. The EDRM Search Guide focuses on the search, retrieval and production of ESI within the larger e-discovery process described in the EDRM Model.
  • IGRM Glossary: The IGRM Glossary consists of commonly used Information Governance terms.
  • The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review: Developed by Maura Grossman of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Gordon Cormack of the University of Waterloo, the Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review contains definitions for terms used in connect with the discovery processes referred to by various terms including Computer Assisted Review, Technology Assisted Review, and Predictive Coding.

All of the glossaries are available here to the general public.  If you think the glossary is missing any terms that need to be defined, you can also go here to submit a definition to EDRM.

Over the next few days, I will have some observations from the ACEDS conference.  But, that can wait until tomorrow – this guy in front of me is making it really hard to type.  :o(

So, what do you think?  Have you downloaded the EDRM glossary yet?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC: eDiscovery Trends

This is the second of the 2016 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series.  eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year to get their observations regarding trends at the show and generally within the eDiscovery industry.  Unlike previous years, some of the questions posed to each thought leader were tailored to their position in the industry, so we have dispensed with the standard questions we normally ask all thought leaders.

Today’s thought leader is George Socha.  A litigator for 16 years, George is President of Socha Consulting LLC, offering services as an electronic discovery expert witness, special master and advisor to corporations, law firms and their clients, and legal vertical market software and service providers in the areas of electronic discovery and automated litigation support. George has also been co-author of the leading survey on the electronic discovery market, The Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey; in 2011, he and Tom Gelbmann converted the Survey into Apersee, an online system for selecting eDiscovery providers and their offerings.  In 2005, he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Electronic Discovery Reference Model project to establish standards within the eDiscovery industry – today, the EDRM model has become a standard in the industry for the eDiscovery life cycle and there are nine active projects with over 300 members from 81 participating organizations.  George has a J.D. for Cornell Law School and a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and about emerging eDiscovery trends overall?

{Interviewed the first morning of LTNY, so the focus of the question to George was more about his expectations for the show and also about general industry trends}.

This is the largest legal technology trade show of the year so it’s going to be a “who’s who” of people in the hallways.  It will be an opportunity for service and software providers to roll out their new “fill in the blank”.  It will be great to catch up with folks that I only get to see once a year as well as folks that I get to see a lot more than that.  And, yet again, I don’t expect any dramatic revelations on the exhibit floor or in any of the sessions.

We continue to hear two recurring themes:  the market is consolidating and eDiscovery has become a commodity. I still don’t see either of these actually happening.  Consolidation would be if some providers were acquiring others and no new providers were coming along to fill in the gaps, or if a small number of providers was taking over a huge share of the market.  Instead, as quickly as one provider acquires another, two, three or more new providers pop up and often with new ideas they hope will gain traction.  In terms of dominating the market, there has been some consolidation on the software side but as to services provider the market continues to look more like law firms than like accounting firms.

In terms of commoditization, I think we still have a market where people want to pay “K-mart, off the rack” prices for “Bespoke” suits.  That reflects continued intense downward pressure on prices.  It does not suggest, however, that the e-discovery market has begun to approximate, for example, the markets for corn, oil or generic goods.  E-discovery services and software are not yet fungible – with little meaningful difference between them other than price.  I have heard no discussion of “e-discovery futures.”  And providers and consumers alike still seem to think that brand, levels of project management, and variations in depth and breadth of offerings matter considerably.

Given that analytics happens at various places throughout the eDiscovery life cycle, is it time to consider tweaking the EDRM model to reflect a broader scope of analysis?

The question always is, “what should the tweak look like?”  The questions I ask in return are “What’s there that should not be there?”, “What should be there that is not?” and “What should be re-arranged?”  One common category of suggested tweaks are the ones meant to change the EDRM model to look more like one particular person’s or organization’s workflow.  This keeps coming up even though the model was never meant to be a workflow – it is a conceptual framework to help break one unitary item into a set of more discrete components that you can examine in comparison to each other and also in isolation.

A second set of tweaks focuses on adding more boxes to the diagram.  Why, we get asked, don’t we have a box called Early Case Assessment, and another called Legal Hold, and another called Predictive Coding, and so on. With activities like analytics, you can take the entire EDRM diagram and drop it inside any one of those boxes or in that circle.  Those concepts already are present in the current diagram.  If, for example, you took the entire EDRM diagram and dropped it inside the Identification box, you could call that Early Case Assessment or Early Data Assessment.  There was discussion early on about whether there should be a box for “Search”, but Search is really an Analysis function – there’s a home for it there.

A third set of suggested tweaks centers on eliminating elements from the diagram.  Some have proposed that we combine the processing and review boxes into a single box – but the rationale they offer is that because they offer both those capabilities there no longer is a need to show separate boxes for the separate functions.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

First, we would like to invite current and prospective members to join us on April 18 for our Spring meeting which will be at the ACEDS conference this year.  The conference is from April 18 through April 20, with the educational portion of the conference slated for the 19th and 20th.

For several years at the conference, ACEDS has given out awards honoring eDiscovery professionals.  To congratulate this year’s winners we will be giving them one-year individual EDRM memberships.

On the project side, one of the undertakings we are working on is “SEAT-1,” a follow up to our eMSAT-1 (eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test).  SEAT-1 will be a self-assessment test specifically for litigation groups and law firms.  The test is intended to enable them to better assess where they are at, how they are doing and where they want to be.  We are also working on different ways to deliver our budget calculators.  It’s too early to provide details on that, but we’re hoping to be able to provide more information soon.

Finally, in the past year we have begun to develop and deliver member-only resources. We published a data set for members only and we put a new section of EDRM site with information about the changes to the Federal rules, including a comprehensive collection of information about the changes to the rules.  This year, we will be working on additional resources to be available to just our members.

Thanks, George, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

EDRM and the Institute for Information Governance offer New Professional Education Series: eDiscovery Trends

As you know if you read this blog, EDRM is committed to education within the eDiscovery industry.  Now, a new partnership with the Institute for IG and IMERGE Consulting will provide education for those interested in learning more about information governance (IG) and electronic records management (ERM).

As EDRM announced yesterday, the purpose of the partnership is to offer education for e-discovery professionals who are seeking to build practical skills in IG and ERM. Participants will earn a certificate in Advanced IG or ERM. Live instructor-led sessions will be held March 22-24, 2016, at the University of San Diego, Kroc Center. Online sessions and on demand HD video content are also available. Course details and registration can be found on the EDRM website at http://www.edrm.net.

“EDRM introduced the Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) to help promote collaboration among the various stakeholders – business users, IT departments and legal, risk and regulatory departments, all of whom have interests and obligations in effective information governance,” said George Socha, co-founder of EDRM. “As the industry continues to mature, professional education that integrates the principles of effective information governance with the legal and risk management interests in e-discovery and regulatory compliance is more important than ever. The courses offered by the Institute for IG provide EDRM members a valuable opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills in the areas of IG and ERM.”

Robert Smallwood, the world’s leading IG author, blogger and trainer, is the primary instructor for the IG classes. Charmaine Brooks, CRM, a renowned records management expert, is the primary instructor for the ERM classes. George Socha will serve as an advisor and guest instructor.

EDRM members are eligible for special discounts.  So, if you’re interested in joining EDRM, there has never been a better time!  Organizations interested in EDRM membership will find information at https://www.edrm.net/join/.

So, what do you think?  Are you interested in learning more about information governance or electronic records management?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The New Federal Rules Changes Are Official Today!: eDiscovery Trends

As we discussed yesterday, today is “E-Discovery Day”.  Click here to check out and register for the webinar sessions being conducted today.  Oh, and by the way, the December 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) are official today!

Several Rules have been amended as part of the changes effective today, with the changes ranging from promotion of cooperation (Rule 1) and proportionality (Rule 26(b)(1)) to failure to preserve electronically stored information (Rule 37(e)) .  Here is a list of key Rules changed:

  • Rule 1. Scope and Purpose
  • Rule 4. Summons
  • Rule 16. Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
  • Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
  • Rule 30. Depositions by Oral Examination
  • Rule 31. Depositions by Written Questions
  • Rule 33. Interrogatories to Parties
  • Rule 34. Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
  • Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

The specific changes are too voluminous to list here; however, if you want to check out the specific changes, EDRM has created an FRCP Reference Collection page with the entire FRCP with the changed Rules highlighted and links to those changed Rules, as well as articles and other resources.  You have to be an EDRM member to access the sections; if you’re not, click here for more information on how to join EDRM.

We’ve been covering the process and debate leading up to the Rules changes for over two and a half years now.  From introducing the initial proposed changes back in April 2013 to covering debate regarding the proposed Rules in the Senate (here and here) and covering over 2,300 public comments regarding the Rules that led to additional changes to Rule 37(e) (later changed again and covered here) to final approval of the Rules (here and here).  Not to mention discussion of the Rules by industry thought leaders last year and again this year!

So, what do you think?  Do you think the new FRCP changes will have a significant effect on how organizations handle eDiscovery?  If so, how?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Mo’ Data, Mo’ Data, Mo’ Data from EDRM: eDiscovery Trends

It didn’t take long for EDRM to deliver on its promise of an advanced data set.  Back in August, EDRM announced the release of the first of its “Micro Datasets”, designed for eDiscovery data testing and process validation.  The first one was small, this new data set is MUCH bigger.

The initial August offering was a 136.9 MB zip file containing the latest versions of everything from Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat files to image files containing EDRM specific work product files and data from public websites to uncommon formats including .mbox email storage files and .gz archive files.  On Monday, EDRM announced the release of a new 5.7 GB Micro Dataset. As before, this new EDRM dataset was assembled to meet eDiscovery data testing and process validation needs of software and tool providers, litigation support organizations, law firms and educational organizations and is sourced from publicly available data and free from copyright restrictions.

Designed to support exception handling exercises and advanced testing, the files in the new dataset have various levels of corruption, and the dataset contains a duplicate set of files that are encrypted.  The file types in the set include:

  • A variety of.csv files
  • Websites and web pages
  • Adobe Acrobat files
  • Graphic files and photographs
  • Public census data
  • Microsoft Office files
  • Audio files
  • 4 email boxes with shared correspondence, threads and attachments
  • Multiple Encase .e01 files containing data from a phone and another data source

This new EDRM Micro Dataset is available exclusively to EDRM members. Current EDRM members have been notified by email with instructions for file downloading (I just downloaded my copy yesterday and look forward to delving into it this week).  So, if you’re interested in joining EDRM, there has never been a better time!  Organizations and individuals interested in EDRM membership will find information at https://www.edrm.net/join/.

“The EDRM Dataset team has done outstanding work in advancing the industry with the development of advanced datasets that better reflect the types of data anomalies and challenges faced by e-discovery professionals today,” said George Socha, co-founder of EDRM. “EDRM members will benefit greatly from their work, in addition to the education, guidelines and latest in industry best practices provided to members.”

Five years after the Enron data set was converted to Outlook by the EDRM Data Set team (in November of 2010) we’re beginning to have some new dataset options.  We may actually someday see an eDiscovery product demo without Enron data!

So, what do you think?  Are you looking forward to checking out the new data set?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.