Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Law Departments and Law Firms Getting Smarter About Data Privacy and Security, According to Huron Legal: eDiscovery Trends

How are recent trends related to data privacy and security affecting the legal industry? Though one recent report was critical of law firms for failing to disclose data breaches, according to a new Q&A from Huron Legal, law departments, and law firms are getting smarter about addressing data privacy and security issues.

The new Q&A with Huron Legal director David Ray is titled Data Privacy and Security in the Legal Industry and discusses the efforts law departments, law firms, and other service providers are making to protect sensitive and confidential data.

“By nature, the legal industry deals with a large amount of potentially sensitive information, and as a result, data privacy is becoming increasingly more important,” said Ray, a data privacy and security expert. “Traditionally, legal professionals have seen themselves as somewhat immune to these issues. However, the increased overall focus on privacy and recent data breaches is affecting the legal sector just like any other. Law departments, law firms, and legal vendors are recognizing this growing pressure and have started to make changes accordingly.”

According to Ray, the five biggest trends in data privacy in the legal industry are in the following areas:

  • Law Departments are Getting Wiser: Law departments are becoming increasingly more involved with privacy issues as well as data breach responses and, accordingly, becoming wiser consumers of external legal services. Unsurprisingly, they are placing the information governance practices of their suppliers under much greater scrutiny than ever before.
  • Vendor Information Governance Scorecards: In fact, law departments are more often using metrics and scorecards to evaluate law firms and legal service vendors with the expectation they can meet or exceed the same privacy and security practices expected from non-legal service providers elsewhere within the organization. Scorecards allow organizations to know that the information that goes outside their walls is secure and protected by the appropriate practices.
  • Law Firms See Opportunity Rather than a Threat: One might expect to see pushback from law firms on newer stringent data security requirements. However, law firms seem to be responding to these heightened client demands and seeing them as a differentiator when competing for business. Demonstrating an ability to deal with sensitive and often high-value matters from an information perspective makes sense.
  • Legal Vendors are Playing Catch-up: Legal vendors are largely playing catch-up in data privacy issues. For a long time, the tools they provided for legal services were narrow. But now legal vendors need to rise to the same challenge. Additionally, these vendors need to design both the software and processes with privacy in mind, consulting the “privacy by design” principles before they become hindrances to the sale of services.
  • Data Privacy is Fast Moving: The most important consideration when dealing with privacy and security is understanding that it is an evolving field. The definitions and laws are changing, both within the U.S. and abroad. Everyone in the legal industry needs to be prepared for change and to be flexible. The laws today may be different in two years, so planning with that in mind is critical.

The full Q&A can be found here, with a podcast of the Q&A available here.

So, what do you think? Do you think the legal industry has made significant strides in dealing with data security and privacy? 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 Are Other Team Members that a Winning Team Needs: eDiscovery Best Practices

When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. Every project is different and unique, so the requirements of each project must be assessed. As the project unfolds, the tasks required to complete it may change – not just in terms of tasks added, but also tasks removed if the work is deemed to be unnecessary. So, it is important to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Yesterday, we began discussing the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project, here are some other roles:

Processing Personnel: After your team has identified and collected the ESI, it will usually be necessary to process that ESI to prepare the data for searching and review. There are several tools and/or service providers available to process your ESI; it’s simply a matter of selecting the best tool(s) for your organization. For each case, key decision makers on the team will need to evaluate the specific needs of that case to determine whether additional software or an outside vendor is needed and select the appropriate software to license and/or vendor to engage, if so. Then again, depending on your needs, you may not need processing personnel at all!

Document Review Personnel: After identifying, collecting, processing and culling the ESI, it typically needs to be reviewed by qualified review personnel to at least determine if it is responsive to the production request from opposing counsel and if it should be withheld due to a claim of privilege. Some review is always necessary, even when you’re utilizing a technology assisted review approach. Depending on the case, the ESI may need to be reviewed for other reasons or the review for responsiveness and/or privilege may be more in-depth. Usually, the reviewers are licensed attorneys; though, experienced paralegals are used in some cases. Either way, they will require training and guidance regarding the expectations of their job in general, receive instructions on the specific review project which they are working on, and be properly trained on use of the selected review application.

Hosting Provider: Depending on the case, you may use a hosting provider for the ESI from as early as preservation through production. The volume of ESI to be managed and reviewed, requirements to distribute review tasks across personnel who may be in different geographical locations, and the arrangements between the parties concerning the method and format of production are among the factors for deciding to use a hosting provider and also for selecting the desired provider. And, be sure to compare pricing structures, not all providers charge for user fees, training or support. It’s important to compare apples to apples.

Attorney(s): Did you think I forgot the attorney? Of course, potentially complicated legal questions and issues arise in just about any discovery project, so you need an attorney who understands the legal rules and complexities associated with discovery of ESI. If the lead attorney doesn’t have the requisite knowledge in this area, it may be necessary to add an attorney with specialized eDiscovery knowledge to the team to provide advice and coordination on discovery issues. Many corporations have designated attorneys or paralegals on their in house legal staff who work on all eDiscovery matters; however, some organizations may also use outside eDiscovery counsel to work on discovery-related matters even if they’re not part of the firm representing the organization.

Each case will have unique requirements that affect the make-up and size of the team, so not all of the roles discussed over the past two days will be required for every case and the number of personnel in each role may also vary.

So, what do you think? Do you estimate the team members needed for your project before it begins? 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.

A Winning Team Needs Several Types of Team Members: eDiscovery Best Practices

Happy Belated Mother’s Day to all the mothers out there, including my lovely wife, Paige!  We touched on this topic over three years (and several hundred subscribers) ago, so I thought it was worth revisiting.  Enjoy!

When beginning a new eDiscovery project, a good place so start is to estimate the various tasks that will need to be performed and identify the type of personnel that will be needed. Every project is different and unique, so the requirements of each project must be assessed. As the project unfolds, the tasks required to complete it may change – not just in terms of tasks added, but also tasks removed if the work is deemed to be unnecessary. So, it is important to revisit the project tasks and assignments to determine whether additional personnel are needed or if you can cut back. Here are the types of roles that could be associated with a typical eDiscovery project:

Client Contact(s): Whether it’s an individual, a corporation or a government entity, it’s important for the client to be involved in the process, so the team should include at least one client representative that can serve as the link between the internal and external teams, providing guidance on internal company workings and contact personnel. Typically, the client contact is from the in-house legal department, usually either a paralegal (to handle routine tasks) or an attorney (to discuss issues and coordinate decision making). When preservation and collection are required, the client contact(s) generally assist with litigation hold procedures, locating and collecting ESI, and conducting interviews of custodians. It is up to the client contact(s) to involve key managers and custodians as needed to provide guidance during this process.

IT Personnel: When responding to requests for ESI, let’s face it – you need one or more people who can “speak geek”. It’s important to include personnel who understand technical details about the client’s various computer systems and data (and maybe even the data map). Depending on the case, you need one or more individuals who understand any and all of the above: email and email archiving, storage of employee ESI, servers, clients, intranets, and databases. It’s typical for IT personnel in larger organizations to specialize; for example, to have one or more that is more knowledgeable about structured data (i.e. database programs) while others may understand and have access to email systems.

IT personnel should be involved in all issues related to the technology for the responding party to increase efficiency and optimize the approach to each new case. For many corporations, this is typically one or more individuals already employed as a member of the IT staff. It’s important for IT personnel to have at least a basic understanding of the legal processes and requirements of discovery (in other words, they have to be able to “speak legal” too, at least somewhat). If they don’t have that, it may be necessary to provide some training before a case arises or employ an outside consultant.

Forensic Collection Personnel: In some cases, it’s necessary to perform forensic analysis on various types of ESI (or at least collect the ESI in a forensic manner in the event that’s required). Examples of cases that may require forensic collection of electronic data include internal integrity investigations, situations where fraud and data deletion are suspected (such as trade secret cases) and government civil or criminal investigations. To enable the forensic specialist to testify (if required) to the work that was performed and exactly how it was done, companies often use a vendor not employed by the company or by the outside law firm.

See at least one critical team component missing? Tomorrow, we’ll talk about the rest of the team. Same bat time, same bat channel!

So, what do you think? Do you estimate the team members needed for your project before it begins? 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.

Oh, Thank Heaven! Court Orders 7-Eleven to Produce Metadata: eDiscovery Case Law

In Younes, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Civil Nos. 13-3500 (RMB/JS), 13-3715 (MAS/JS), 13-4578(RMB/JS) (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2015), New Jersey Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider granted the plaintiffs’ motions to compel the production of metadata for selected groups of documents, denying the defendant’s cross-motions to bar the production of metadata.

Case Background

In this dispute between franchisees and the parent company, the plaintiffs had struggled to obtain relevant documents from the defendant regarding the possible take back of franchises, with the defendant producing documents “in dribs and drabs”. Even after months of discovery and numerous court conferences addressing discovery disputes, the defendant acknowledged that not all relevant, requested and non-privileged documents had been produced. Moreover, some of the key documents produced were not dated and did not list the author or recipients.

As a result, one plaintiff group identified 38 documents and two Excel spreadsheets for which they wanted metadata (including “the date of origination, author, custodian, date of each modification and author of each modification, and to the extent available, any data which established to whom the document had been electronically distributed”), while the other plaintiffs sought metadata for an additional 49 documents, two of which were duplicative of the first group of documents. The plaintiff groups filed motions to compel production of the metadata.

The defendant, in its opposition to plaintiffs’ motions and in support of its cross-motions, argued that “(1) the parties agreed at the outset of the case that documents need only be produced in PDF format without metadata; (2) 7-Eleven does not possess much of the requested metadata; (3) the metadata that is available is ‘extremely limited, minimally meaningful and potentially misleading’; and (4) it would be ‘unreasonably burdensome to require 7-Eleven to re-produce [its] . . . documents with metadata.’” (emphasis added) The defendant supported its opposition with statements from the Declaration of its IT director.

Judge’s Evaluation and Ruling

Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E), Judge Schneider noted that “A party requesting ESI may specify the form of production, which can include metadata”, but did also note that “[s]ome courts hold that a party must show a ‘particularized need’ for metadata.” With regard to that, Judge Schneider stated:

“To the extent it is necessary, plaintiffs have shown a particularized need for the requested metadata. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that many of the paper documents produced to date are missing source, date, and other key background information. This missing information is plainly relevant and discoverable. Further, the requested metadata is relevant to authenticating 7-Eleven’s documents, especially since the authors or creators of some important documents are unknown. It is not insignificant that plaintiffs only identified a relatively small number of documents for which they request metadata rather than asking for metadata for all documents.”

Judge Schneider also found that “None of 7-Eleven’s arguments are persuasive. It is true that the parties originally agreed not to request metadata. However, good cause exists to modify the agreement… Had plaintiffs known at the outset of the case the difficulties they would face in obtaining relevant information regarding 7-Eleven’s documents, it is unlikely they would have agreed to forego requesting metadata. The changed circumstances plaintiffs face justify modifying their earlier agreement not to request metadata… Further, plaintiffs are not requesting metadata for all of 7-Eleven’s documents. Plaintiffs only request metadata for a finite number of documents. The Court does not expect the cost to retrieve the requested metadata to be extensive or costly.”

As a result, he granted the plaintiffs’ motions to compel the production of metadata for the selected groups of documents, denying the defendant’s cross-motions to bar same.

So, what do you think? Was that the correct decision or should the judge have honored the initial agreement between the parties to not require metadata? 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.

Ten Years Later, EDRM is Still Going Strong: eDiscovery Best Practices

It’s hard to believe, but ten years ago this month the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery market was launched. Launched in May 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (now simply known as EDRM) was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market. This week, EDRM moved into its second decade with its annual Spring Workshop in St. Paul, MN.

At the first meeting in May 2005, there were 35 initial members, according to Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates, co-founder of EDRM along with George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC. Check out the preliminary first draft of the EDRM diagram – it has evolved quite a bit to its current form today! Among the participants in that first meeting were a number of eDiscovery providers and, according to Gelbmann, they asked “Do you really expect us all to work together?” The answer was “yes”, and the question hasn’t been asked again. Today, there are over 370 members from 119 participating organizations including eDiscovery providers, law firms and corporations (as well as some individual participants).

As usual, in the first morning of the workshop, each team provided a status update of their accomplishments over the past year as well as current deliverables in progress. A few highlights:

  • Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM): Reed Irvin of Viewpointe provided the IGRM update, which included reiteration of the IGRM mission statement, a review of the evolution of the IGRM model (covered by us here, among other places), a review of group accomplishments over the past year (including this white paper, which is currently being updated) and discussion of the importance of information governance today.
  • Data Set: Eric Robi of Elluma Discovery provided the update for the Data Set team, which is working on several new data sets useful for testing that will include multiple levels of corrupted and encrypted files, as well as a set of email boxes containing fictitious content prepared to demonstrate a case and expects to announce a release as soon as next week.
  • Metrics: Tiana Van Dyk of Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer and other team members gave the update for the Metrics team, which is currently working on enhancements to the eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1) released last October, as well as continued efforts on new metrics calculators (last month, they rolled out a new EDRM Data Calculator to go with previously released calculators here, here, here and here).
  • Processing Standards: Greg Houston of kCura gave the update, which discussed the efforts to update the first release of the standards document that was rolled out in March.

As always, the meetings continued with breakout sessions for each of the teams, enabling them to further their progress toward deliverables for the coming year. Also, this year’s meeting included a session to discuss perspectives from EDRM’s growing corporate and government entity membership, with several ideas discussed regarding what EDRM can do to help to ease pain points for these organizations in information governance and eDiscovery, resulting in launching a new Corporate Project Team led by David Yerich of United Healthcare and Robert Stangler of Ameriprise Financial, with several initiatives planned. Corporate participation at the spring workshop was good with about 25% of the attendees representing corporate perspectives.

Having participated in EDRM since 2006 (and now an Education Partner), I can say that one of the most enjoyable aspects of attending the meetings is the networking with fellow industry professionals and EDRM provides several opportunities for that, with a cocktail reception the first (arrival) evening and a dinner after the first day’s sessions. Where else can you help to standardize the information governance and eDiscovery industries, while sharing stories (and a few laughs) with fellow industry professionals?

For more information about joining EDRM, click here for more reasons to join, here for answers to frequently asked questions and here for fees for participating (if you’re a corporation or government entity, it’s free!).

So, what do you think? Are you a member of EDRM? If not, why not? 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.

For Better Document Review, You Need to Approach a ZEN State: eDiscovery Best Practices

Among the many definitions of the word “zen”, the Urban Dictionary provides perhaps the most appropriate (non-religious) definition of the word, as follows: a total state of focus that incorporates a total togetherness of body and mind. However, when it comes to document review, a new web site by eDiscovery thought leader Ralph Losey may change your way of thinking about the word “ZEN”.

Ralph’s new site, ZEN Document Review, introduces ‘ZEN’ as an acronym: Zero Error Numerics. As stated on the site, “ZEN document review is designed to attain the highest possible level of efficiency and quality in computer assisted review. The goal is zero error. The methods to attain that goal include active machine learning, random sampling, objective measurements, and comparative analysis using simple, repeatable systems.”

The ZEN methods were developed by Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team (many of which are documented on his excellent e-Discovery Team® blog). They rely on focused attention and full clear communication between review team members.

In the intro video on his site, Ralph acknowledges that it’s impossible to have zero error in any large, complex project, but “with the help of the latest tools and using the right mindset, we can come pretty damn close”. One of the graphics on the site represents an “upside down champagne glass” that illustrates 99.9% probable relevant identified correctly during the review process at the top of the graph and 00.1% probable relevant identified incorrectly at the bottom of the graph.

The ZEN approach includes everything from “predictive coding analytics, a type of artificial intelligence, actively managed by skilled human analysts in a hybrid approach” to “quiet, uninterrupted, single-minded focus” where “dual tasking during review is prohibited” to “judgmental and random sampling and analysis such as i-Recall” and even high ethics, with the goal being to “find and disclose the truth in compliance with local laws, not win a particular case”. And thirteen other factors, as well. Hey, nobody said that attaining ZEN is easy!

Attaining zero error in document review is a lofty goal – I admire Ralph for setting the bar high. Using the right tools, methods and attitude, can we come “pretty damn close”?  What do you think? 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.

Appeals Court Upholds “Death Penalty Order” Sanction That Leads to Multi-Million Dollar Judgment: eDiscovery Case Law

In Crews v. Avco Corp., No. 70756-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2015), a Washington Court of Appeals upheld a “death penalty order” against the defendant for discovery violations, including the failure to produce relevant information, but remanded for amendment of the final judgment of over $17.28 million to reflect any offsets for settlements with other defendants.

Case Background

In this product liability case related to a faulty carburetor that was associated with a plane crash in which several people were killed, the defendant failed to satisfy the plaintiffs’ discovery demands from October 2010 into February 2013, often objecting to most, if not all, of the requests. During part of that time, the defendant relied in part upon its document retention policy and, after being held in contempt, the defendant submitted a declaration from counsel describing its efforts to comply with the court’s order to produce. While not providing the policy itself, counsel explained that “pursuant to company policy” certain categories of documents were “retained only for fixed periods of time” and stating that many of the documents supplied by another defendant were “beyond the various retention periods” in the policy. Ultimately, the plaintiffs’ filed a motion for default against the defendant.

On February 4, 2013, the first day of trial, the judge held oral argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for default, during which the defendant’s counsel finally produced a copy of the records management policy. After reviewing the policy, the judge found that it was unclear whether the policy extended to the documents requested by the plaintiffs and orally granted the plaintiffs’ motion to sanction the defendant. The next day, the judge entered a written order granting the plaintiffs’ motion. The order stated that there was substantial evidence that the defendant did not comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the court found that the withheld discovery tied directly to the plaintiffs’ burden of proof regarding the defendant’s violation of federal regulations and punitive damages.

The court found that the defendant’s “continued disregard and violation of the discovery and contempt orders is without reasonable excuse and is willful. [Avco] has and continues to substantially prejudice plaintiffs’ preparation for trial and presentation at trial, on issues of liability, causation, and punitive damages.” As a result, the court ruled that “All of each plaintiff’s allegations in their respective operative Complaints against [Avco] are deemed admitted, and all of [Avco’s] defenses, if any, are stricken.”

The jury considered compensatory damages and punitive damages in two separate phases of trial, returning a verdict for the plaintiff of $17,283,000; $6 million of which was in punitive damages. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds, arguing that the order violated due process and that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the most severe sanctions possible when lesser sanctions would have sufficed and also challenged specific sanctions.

Appeals Court Analysis

Assessing the defendant’s objections, the appellate court described the requirements to justify harsh sanctions – that the discovery violations were willful or deliberate, that the opposing party was substantially prejudiced, and that the trial court explicitly considered lesser sanctions. Following considerable analysis, the appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its findings that the violation of the discovery order was willful, that the plaintiffs’ case was prejudiced and that lesser sanctions would not be adequate for a fair trial.

With regard to the records management policy, the appellate court, while observing that the policy was not part of the record, agreed that the “scope and operation of the policy is unclear and unsupported” and that the defendant “did not submit any other evidence, such as employee affidavits, about how the policy applied to the requested documents and their destruction”.

Though the appellate court essentially affirmed the sanctions imposed, it did remand the case for “amendment of the final judgment to reflect any offsets authorized pursuant to chapter 4.22 RCW.”

So, what do you think? Were the sanctions appropriate or should the court have considered lesser sanctions against the defendant? 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.

Even When You Win in the Playoffs, You Should Still Think Before You Hit Send: eDiscovery Trends

Since social media has become a big part of discovery, we like to good social media disaster story every once in a while. Last year, we covered the story of the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami, who lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook. And, of course, no discussion of social media disasters would be complete without mentioning Anthony Weiner. The latest example is the (now former) social media manager of my hometown Houston Rockets basketball team, who lost his job over an offensive tweet.

As covered in Click2Houston.com (Houston Rockets fire social media manager after offensive tweet, written by Syan Rhodes), the Rockets fired its social media manager Chad Shanks after his tweet in the waning moments of the Rockets’ series-clinching 104-93 Game 5 win over the Dallas Mavericks. With the game essentially in hand, Shanks posted a tweet using emoji characters of a horse with a gun to its head and the words, “Shhhhh. Just close your eyes. It will all be over soon”.

The Mavericks’ official Twitter account reacted, tweeting, “Not very classy but we still wish you guys the very best of luck in the next round.” Not long after, the Rockets’ tweet was removed and the team was apologizing, “Our Tweet earlier was in very poor taste & not indicative of the respect we have for the @dallasmavs & their fans. We sincerely apologize.”

The next day, Shanks was fired.

“I’ve kind of made my name, so to speak, even though a lot of people didn’t know who I am, being a little more edgy, pushing the envelope a little bit and trying to be funny”, Shanks was quoted in an interview with KPRC. “It was heat of the moment. My emotions got the best of me and I didn’t see how that tweet would offend so many people. And that was my mistake; I should have thought that through a little better.”

Shanks also tried to address the controversial tweet head-on, stating “People were upset, feeling I advocated violence toward animals. That wasn’t what I meant at all. It was just a jab at taking out the Mavericks and I really didn’t mean to offend anyone,” he said. “I’m sorry it ended this way, but I’m grateful for the opportunities they gave me. I loved every second of the job.”

Shanks is getting a lot of support online with the hashtag #BringBackChad and there’s even a change.org petition to try to get him reinstated.

And, there is at least a bit of a happy ending. Dan Le Batard, of ESPN, hired Shanks during his ESPNRadio show to run his show’s Twitter account (through Saturday night, covering the NFL Draft, among other big sports events). Hey, even Anthony Weiner made a comeback – sort of.

So, what do you think? Do you have any social media disasters in your organization? 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.

One Step to Go for the Federal Rules Changes. Will it Be a Formality?: eDiscovery Trends

Wednesday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts submitted proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Congress via an order, accompanied by letters to Speaker of the House John Boehner and President of the Senate (and Vice President of the US) Joe Biden.

The text of the letters to each of them is as follows:

“I have the honor to submit to the Congress the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2072 of Title 28, United States Code.

Accompanying these rules are excerpts from the Reports of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States containing the Committee Notes submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code.”

Assuming that Congress doesn’t introduce legislation to affect the timing or content of the rules (which most people, including our thought leader interviewees this year, do not expect), the rules will become effective on December 1 of this year.

A copy of the letters and the order approving the rules changes (as well as the changes themselves) can be found on the Supreme Court site here.

We’ve been covering the progress of Rules adoption and the associated debate regarding the rules – especially Rule 37(e) – for over two years. For the background, check out our previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

So, what do you think? Do you expect the proposed changes to have a positive effect of how discovery is handled? 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.

It’s Draft Day! What Skills Does Your eDiscovery Quarterback Need?: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you’re a fan of a pro football team, you’ve been waiting months to see what players your favorite team will be drafting. That wait ends tonight as the annual NFL draft kicks off. When it comes to selecting football players, the most important player is the quarterback and teams put quarterback prospects through a series of tests (both physical and mental) to attempt to determine their likelihood for success in pro football (and they still get it wrong – a lot).

Like a football team, every litigation team navigating the discovery process needs a good “quarterback” – only we tend to call ours “project managers”. What skills does your eDiscovery “quarterback” need? Let’s take a look at some of the skills and qualifications that I look for in a good eDiscovery project manager.

  • Actual Case Experience: A good discovery PM candidate doesn’t have to have a law degree (even a JD) to be a successful project manager. Plenty of paralegals and IT professionals can be excellent project managers. If you’ve been following this blog for a long time, you know that I’m an IT professional, not a lawyer. I like to say that “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the Web”. But, I have managed many discovery projects and worked with attorneys for over 25 years. What’s important is the actual case experience that you’ve had, working with and managing other team members (including clients and outside vendors) in completing deliverables and meeting deadlines in all phases of the discovery life cycle.
  • Technical Proficiency: A good discovery PM candidate doesn’t have to have a Computer Science degree either. But, the candidate should have a good understand how data is stored (and that even “deleted” data may be recoverable), a good understanding of Office and most common applications and able to “speak geek” well enough to work with us IT types. In short, the best type of candidate is a lawyer whose “hobby” is being a computer geek OR an IT professional whose “hobby” is the litigation process.
  • Knowledge of the EDRM Model: If you don’t know the flow and phases of the EDRM model, you need not apply. If you only know the EDRM model and don’t know about any of the vast frameworks, standards and resources that have been developed by industry professionals over the past ten years (many of which we’ve covered here), you probably need not apply either.
  • Familiarity with Discovery Rules: Knowledge of Federal and applicable State Rules that pertain to discovery (and preferably the current proposed rules changes covered here and here, among other places) would be expected.
  • Considerable Experience with at Least One Litigation Support Software Platform: A lot of job postings that I have seen require experience with a particular software application – the application that they are using. It’s great if you can get it, but I would rather select a sharp, technically proficient candidate who learns quickly than a less qualified candidate that happens to know the preferred platform better. While the first candidate may require a little more ramp up time, he/she has greater upside in the long run.
  • Strong Verbal and Written Communication Skills: You can get a sense of a candidate’s verbal communication skills during the interview process. What about their written skills? I actually like to give PM candidates an assignment scenario where they are asked to communicate a project issue to an imaginary client (me) via email and explain how that impacts the scope and schedule, then evaluate that example as part of the evaluation process.

I also like to ask if they read any publications or blogs on eDiscovery. If they read Ball in Your Court, e-Discovery Team®, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Bow Tie Law’s Blog or Complex Discovery (to name a few), that’s bonus points! And, of course, if they read eDiscovery Daily, that’s major bonus points (everyone likes a suck-up). 🙂

That’s not a comprehensive list above, but it represents some of the key attributes that I seek. What qualifications do you look for in an eDiscovery “quarterback”? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. – The player pictured is Bryce Petty, quarterback prospect from my alma-mater, Baylor University. He may not know the EDRM model, but I think he will make a terrific quarterback in the NFL. You heard it here first. 🙂

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.