Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Get Ready for ILTACON!: eDiscovery Trends

It’s a rare Saturday post for us as we get ready for ILTACON 2015, the (newly named this year) annual educational conference for the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA), which will be at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas this year.  It starts tomorrow with several networking events, and begins in earnest on Monday with the first day of sessions.  Just a warning, Caesars Palace is not pager friendly!  Here are a few resources to help you get ready.

Summary Agenda of Networking Events, Educational Sessions, Meals and Breaks, etc.

Summary Grid of Conference Sessions (4 page PDF)

Detailed Conference Session Agenda with Descriptions of the Sessions (61(!) page PDF)

Details on Networking Events and Recreational Events (hey, everybody needs some R&R during a long show!)

Even a one-page PDF with 8 Reasons Why You Should Send Your Hard-Working and Deserving Employee to ILTACON 2015 (to help convince your boss to send you).

eDiscovery Daily will be at the show and will cover the sessions and highlight sessions each day related to eDiscovery, litigation support and Information Governance.  Heck, we will even be presenting at the 20 E-Discovery Warnings in 60 Minutes session on Tuesday at 1:30 (for a whopping six minutes).  Hope to meet you there!

So, what do you think?  Are you attending ILTACON this year?  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.

Here’s a New Dataset Option, Thanks to EDRM: eDiscovery Trends

For several years, the Enron data set (converted to Outlook by the EDRM Data Set team back in November of 2010) has been the only viable set of public domain data available for testing and demonstration of eDiscovery processing and review applications.  Chances are, if you’ve seen a demo of an eDiscovery application in the last few years, it was using Enron data.  Now, the EDRM Data Set team has begun to offer some new dataset options.

Yesterday, EDRM announced the release of the first of its “Micro Datasets.”  As noted in the announcement, the datasets are designed for eDiscovery data testing and process validation. Software vendors, litigation support organizations, law firms and others may use these smaller sets to qualify support, test speed and accuracy in indexing and search, and conduct more forensically oriented analytics exercises throughout the eDiscovery workflow.

The initial offering is a 136.9 MB zip file containing the latest versions of everything from Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat files to image files and contains EDRM specific work product files and data from public websites. There are even some uncommon formats including .mbox email storage files and .gz archive files!  The EDRM Dataset group has scoured the internet and found usable freely available data at universities, government sites and elsewhere, a selection of which are included in the zip file.

The first EDRM Micro Dataset zip file is available now for download here.  While it’s an initial small set, EDRM has promised “advanced” data sets to come.  Those advanced data sets, to be released in the near future, will be available exclusively to EDRM members.  Members will be notified by email with instructions for file downloading.   Organizations interested in EDRM membership will find information at https://www.edrm.net/join/.  Now, there is more reason than ever to join!

So, what do you think?  Are you tired of using the Enron data set and look forward to alternatives?   If so, today is your lucky day!  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.

eDiscovery Has Gone to the Dogs: eDiscovery Trends

If I had known that yesterday was National Dog Day, I would have posted this then, instead of today, but it’s a great story any day.

As reported by ABA Journal, Discover Magazine and NBC News, there is a new type of forensic collection device being used in criminal forensic investigations.  His name is Bear and he’s a black Labrador.

This 2-year-old rescue dog played a key role in the arrest of former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle on child-porn charges, finding a thumb drive that humans had failed to find during a search of Fogle’s Indiana house in July, several weeks before he agreed to plead guilty to having X-rated images of minors and paying to have sex with teenage girls.

According to the Discover article, Bear also helped officers locate 16 smartphones, 10 flash drives and six laptops during an 11-hour search last month of Fogle’s home.  His training relies on the work of chemist Jack Hubball, who tested flash drives, circuit boards and other electronic components and found a chemical that is common to all of them.  Hubball previously identified the accelerants (e.g., gasoline) dogs sniff out to identify arson, and also helped train dogs to find narcotics and bombs.

According to the NBC article, Bear has taken part in four other investigations, including this week’s arrest of Olympics gymnastics coach Marvin Sharp. And he’s just been sold to the Seattle Police Department for $9,500 (basically the cost of the training) to help investigate Internet crimes.  The NBC article includes a video of Bear in action, with Bear’s “dog whisperer” Todd Jordan providing a demonstration of his abilities.

After helping with the Fogle investigation, Bear’s trainer says he’s received some 30 inquiries from police who want to buy their own electronics-sniffing dog.  I can see why.  Labradors not only have particular sniffing skills, they also make great pets, too!  And, although I have so far been unable to train our black Labrador Brooke to keep from jumping on guests to our house, we still love her and are glad we were able to rescue her last year.  Here’s a picture of her, with her favorite Kong ball:

In the future, criminal forensic investigators may show up at a suspect’s residence with a subpoena, a copy of Forensic Toolkit (FTK) and their trusty lab.  As in Labrador.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a unique ESI collection story?   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.

If You Play “Tag” Too Often, You Might Find Yourself Playing “Hide and Seek”: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you’ve used any review tool, you’re familiar with the “tag” field to classify documents.  Whether classifying documents as responsive, non-responsive, privileged, or applicable to any of a number of issues, you’ve probably used a tag field to simply check a document to indicate that the associated characteristic of the document is “true”.  But, if you fall in love with the tag field too much, your database can become unmanageable and you may find yourself playing “hide and seek” to try to find the desired tag.

So, what is a “tag” field?

In databases such as SQL Server (which many review platforms use for managing the data associated with ESI being reviewed), a “tag” field is typically a “bit” field known as a yes/no boolean field (also known as true/false).  As a “bit” field, its valid values are 0 (false) and 1 (true).  In the review platform, the tag field is typically represented by a check box that can simply be clicked to check it as true (or click again to turn it back to false).  Easy, right?

One of the most popular features of CloudNine’s review platform (shameless plug warning!) is the ability for the users to create their own fields – as many as they want.  This can be useful for classifying documents in a variety of ways – in many cases, using the aforementioned “tag” field.  So, the user can create their fields and organize them in the order they want to make review more efficient.  Easy, right?

Sometimes, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

I have worked with some clients who have used tag fields to classify virtually everything they track within their collection – in some cases, to the extent where their field collections grew to over 200 data fields!!  Try finding the data field you need quickly when you have that many.  Not easy, right?  A couple of examples where use of the tag field was probably not the best choice:

  • Document Types: I have seen instances where clients have created a tag field for each type of document. So, instead of creating one text-based “DocType” field and populating it with the description of the type of document (e.g., Bank Statements, Correspondence, Reports, Tax Documents, etc.), the client created a tag field for each separate document type.  For clients who have identified 15-20 distinct document types (or more), it can become quite difficult to find the right tag to classify the type of document.
  • Account Numbers: Once again, instead of creating one text-based field for tracking key account numbers mentioned in a document, I have seen clients create a separate tag field for each key account number, which can drive the data field count up quite a bit.

Up front planning is one key to avoid “playing tag” too often.  Identify the classifications that you intend to track and look for common themes among larger numbers of classifications (e.g., document types, organizations mentioned, account numbers, etc.).  Develop an approach for standardizing descriptions for those within text-based fields (that can then effectively searched using “equal to” or “contains” searches, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish) and you can keep your data field count to a manageable level.  That will keep your game of “tag” from turning into “hide and seek”.

So, what do you think?  Have you worked with databases that have so many data fields that it becomes difficult to find the right field?   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.

Got Problems with Your eDiscovery Processes? “SWOT” Them Away: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having recently helped a client put one of these together, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic…

Understanding the internal and external challenges that your organization faces allows it to approach ongoing and future discovery more strategically.  A “SWOT” analysis is a tool that can be used to develop that understanding.

A “SWOT” analysis is a structured planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats associated with a specific business objective.  That specific business objective can be a specific project or all of the activities of a business unit.  It involves specifying the objective of the specific business objective and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieving that objective.  The SWOT analysis is broken down as follows:

  • Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others;
  • Weaknesses: are characteristics that place the team at a disadvantage relative to others;
  • Opportunities: elements in the environment that the project could exploit to its advantage;
  • Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project.

“SWOT”, get it?

From an eDiscovery perspective, a SWOT analysis enables you to take an objective look at how your organization handles discovery issues – what you do well and where you need to improve – and the external factors that can affect how your organization addresses its discovery challenges.  The SWOT analysis enables you to assess how your organization handles each phase of the discovery process – from Information Governance to Presentation – to evaluate where your strengths and weaknesses exist so that you can capitalize on your strengths and implement changes to address your weaknesses.

How solid is your information governance program?  How well does your legal department communicate with IT?  How well formalized is your coordination with outside counsel and vendors?  Do you have a formalized process for implementing and tracking litigation holds?  These are examples of questions you might ask about your organization and, based on the answers, identify your organization’s strengths and weaknesses in managing the discovery process.

However, if you only look within your organization, that’s only half the battle.  You also need to look at external factors and how they affect your organization in its handling of discovery issues.  Trends such as the growth of social media, and changes to state or federal rules addressing handling of electronically stored information (ESI) need to be considered in your organization’s strategic discovery plan.

Having worked through the strategic analysis process with several organizations over a number of years, I find that the SWOT analysis is a useful tool for summarizing where the organization currently stands with regard to managing discovery, which naturally identifies areas for improvement that can be addressed.

So, what do you think?  Has your organization performed a SWOT analysis of your discovery process?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Graphic source: Wikipedia.

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.

Court Acknowledges Lack of Expertise to Recommend Search Methodology, Orders Parties to Confer: eDiscovery Case Law

In ACI Worldwide Corp. v. MasterCard Technologies, LLC and MasterCard International, Inc., 8:14CV31 (Jul. 13, 2015), Nebraska Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett, acknowledging that the Court “simply does not have the expertise necessary to determine the best methodology to be employed in retrieving the requested materials in a safe, non-obtrusive, and cost-effective manner”, ordered the parties to “once again” confer in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the search methodology to be employed by the defendants in retrieving the information requested by the plaintiff.

Case Background

In this action where the plaintiff alleged the defendants violated a licensing agreement and disclosed confidential information regarding the plaintiff’s middleware, the plaintiff sought ESI from the defendants to determine whether they continued using information regarding the middleware after expiration of the license agreement and whether they still use it in their source code today.

The defendants objected to producing the ESI as requested, stating that the requests were burdensome and also claiming risks that the requests posed to the defendants’ production systems. The plaintiff, in an effort to address the defendants’ concerns, revised the discovery requests several times and devised a search protocol for the defendants to use in retrieving the requested information – when the defendants refused to use the devised search protocol, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Defendants do not dispute the relevance of the requested information”, Judge Gossett found that “Plaintiff has shown a particular need for the information and that the information is relevant to the issues involved in this action”.  Judge Gossett stopped short of granting the plaintiff’s motion though, stating:

“However, the Court simply does not have the expertise necessary to determine the best methodology to be employed in retrieving the requested materials in a safe, non-obtrusive, and cost-effective manner. Based on the information before it, the Court does not even know whether a search methodology or protocol exists (or could exist) which would allow the requested information to reasonably be retrieved.”

As a result, Judge Gossett chose to “order the parties to once again confer in an effort to reach an agreement regarding the search methodology to be employed in retrieving the requested information”, with a plan to “refer the matter to a special master” if the parties would be unable to agree.

So, what do you think?  Should the court have been able to recommend the methodology or was the judge wise to order the parties to try again to work it out?  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.

Government Attorneys Are More Confident about eDiscovery But Feel Less Prepared to Discuss It: eDiscovery Trends

In April 2014, we covered the seventh annual benchmarking study of eDiscovery Practices for Government Agencies conducted by Deloitte and covered the eighth annual study last December.  Apparently, Deloitte operates on an eight month year – their Ninth Annual Benchmarking Study of Electronic Discovery Practices for Government Agencies is available now.

This time, one hundred twenty four (149) professionals (up from 124 last time) across multiple government agencies participated in the survey, with attorneys comprising 60% of the respondents (down from 69% last time).  Here are some key findings in the report:

  • Use of predictive coding is on the rise again as 27% of respondents indicated having used predictive coding in any of their cases, up from 23% last year and 17% in the April 2014 results.
  • Collection from mobile devices in eDiscovery is sharply on the rise as 54% of respondents have collected data from smart phones or tablets in their eDiscovery matters, up from 26% last December. 28% of respondents have requested data from mobile sources.
  • Requesting and producing social media data is somewhat low, as only 23% of respondents have requested social media data, such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter from opposing counsel and only 11% have produced social media data from those sites.
  • Individual confidence continues to rise as 85% of respondents felt as confident or more confident in their ability to manage eDiscovery in their cases as compared to a year ago. But, agency confidence is still a concern as 78% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all effective in their agency’s ability to deal with the challenges of eDiscovery and 75% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all confident that if challenged their agency could demonstrate that their ESI was “accurate, accessible, complete, and trustworthy”.
  • When it comes to discussing matters regarding eDiscovery with opposing counsel, the trend is considerably downward as only 42% of respondents felt adequately prepared to do so, down from 56% last time and less than half the percentage as it was in 2012 (when it was 87%). That’s clearly heading the wrong direction.

Once again, these are some sample findings.  For a complete list of findings, available in a condensed, two-page (this time) USA Today style infographic, click here to download.  Twice the pages as last time, but the report is still free!

So, what do you think?  Do you work for, or with, government agencies?  If so, do any of these findings surprise you?  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.

August Case Law Pop Quiz Answers!: eDiscovery Case Law

I’m out of the office for a couple of days, taking the kiddos on one more overnight family vacation before school starts next week. Yesterday, we gave you a pop quiz for the eDiscovery case law that we’ve covered recently. If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! Let’s see how you did. Here are the answers.

1. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce metadata?

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Crews v. Avco Corp.

D. Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

2. In which case did the court of appeals uphold a “death penalty order” against the defendant for discovery violations

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Crews v. Avco Corp.

D. Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

3. In which case(s) was a request for sanctions denied by the court?

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Sanctions were denied in both cases

D. Sanctions were denied in neither case

4. In which case did the court deny the request for “limitless” access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

5. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce further ESI in native format or TIFF format with the associated metadata?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

6. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce employees’ personal data in an EEOC dispute?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

7. In which case was the defendants sanctioned over $200,000 for using “Crap Cleaner” software, among other violations?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

8. In which case was the plaintiff taxed over $63,000 to be paid to the prevailing defendant in the case?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

9. In which case was the plaintiff sanctioned for failing to preserve an audio recording, as part of “wilfully” engaging in spoliation of relevant evidence?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

10. In which case did the court order the deposition of an expert to evaluate issues resulting from plaintiff’s deletion of ESI?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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.

August Case Law Pop Quiz!: eDiscovery Case Law

I’m out of the office for a couple of days, taking the kiddos on one more overnight family vacation before school starts next week. So, here’s an opportunity to to catch up on cases we’ve covered recently with a case law pop quiz.

If you’re reading the blog each day, these questions should be easy! If not, we’ve provided a link to the post with the answer. We’re that nice. Test your knowledge! Tomorrow, we’ll post the answers for those who don’t know and didn’t look them up.

1. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce metadata?

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Crews v. Avco Corp.

D. Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

2. In which case did the court of appeals uphold a “death penalty order” against the defendant for discovery violations

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Crews v. Avco Corp.

D. Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

3. In which case(s) was a request for sanctions denied by the court?

A. Malone v. Kantner Ingredients

B. Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

C. Sanctions were denied in both cases

D. Sanctions were denied in neither case

4. In which case did the court deny the request for “limitless” access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

5. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce further ESI in native format or TIFF format with the associated metadata?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

6. In which case was the defendant ordered to produce employees’ personal data in an EEOC dispute?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

7. In which case was the defendants sanctioned over $200,000 for using “Crap Cleaner” software, among other violations?

A. In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases

B. Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

C. Wilson v. Conair Corp.

D. EEOC v. DolgenCorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General

8. In which case was the plaintiff taxed over $63,000 to be paid to the prevailing defendant in the case?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

9. In which case was the plaintiff sanctioned for failing to preserve an audio recording, as part of “wilfully” engaging in spoliation of relevant evidence?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

10. In which case did the court order the deposition of an expert to evaluate issues resulting from plaintiff’s deletion of ESI?

A. Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.

B. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

C. Willett, et al. v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

D. Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc.

As always, please let us know if you have questions or comments, or if there are specific topics you’d like to see covered.

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.

Want to Avoid eDiscovery “Gotchas”? Attend this Session at ILTA: eDiscovery Best Practices

There is less than two weeks left before ILTACON 2015, the annual conference for the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.  eDiscovery Daily will be at the show and providing coverage before, during and after the show.  If you’re attending (or thinking of attending), here is one session that you should put on your list to check out.

The session 20 E-Discovery Warnings in 60 Minutes will be moderated by George Socha, EDRM co-founder and president of Socha Consulting and Michael Boggs, director of practice support at Holland & Hart.  George and Michael will moderate a fast-paced series of live stories from audience members, who will share examples from their own experiences of eDiscovery situations gone wrong, explain how the issue was ultimately resolved, and share their lessons learned.  As George noted in EDRM’s announcement regarding the session yesterday, “The session will offer 20 opportunities to learn from the mistakes of others – an educational and entertaining way to increase one’s own success rate.”

Several eDiscovery professionals will be presenting the eDiscovery situations gone wrong, including me.  I will be presenting two topics that are issues we have experienced with some of our clients at CloudNine and how we addressed them (hint: we’ve covered them on this blog before).  So, I hope to meet you there!

The session will take place on Tuesday, September 1, from 1:30 to 2:30 pm at the ILTACON 2015 conference at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas (currently slated for Milano Ballroom I & II).

So, what do you think?  Will you be attending ILTACON this year?  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.