Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Part 1: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fifth 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 Jason R. Baron of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.  Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice and co-chair of the Information Governance Initiative.  An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason previously served as the first Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice.  He also was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context.  He served as lead editor of the recently published ABA book, Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner.

Jason provided so much good information that we decided to publish his interview in two parts.  The remainder of his interview will be published on Monday and Craig Ball’s interview (also in two parts) will be published on Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

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

It certainly has had a different look and feel this year, given that it’s now Legalweek in its branding.  (Although some of us old timers still will always refer to it as Legaltech).  I was very impressed with the lineup of speakers, despite the fact that several of the names that have routinely appeared year after year, like myself, were not speaking this year.  Instead, it seems there has been a broader reach that goes beyond eDiscovery, including a whole set of people who are in the data analysis and forensics world.

I really liked the keynote on day one.  I previously had read Andrew McAfee’s book, The Second Machine Age – and I certainly agreed with his observation in the keynote that we are not only in an era of accelerating change but that the pace of acceleration is itself accelerating.  Part of McAfee’s presentation was about how, up until about a year ago, predictions were that it would take about another decade or two for a software program to beat the world’s best Go player.  The speaker showed articles from 2015, from publications like The Wall Street Journal, that talked up the complexity of the game Go.  The speaker noted how Go is intuitive, that the game progresses in complexity, and the really interesting thing is that, unlike chess, the best Go players in the world really have no idea how they do it.  They simply intuit, by looking at the 19 x 19 grid, as to a winning strategy.  And yet, remarkably, this past year, a machine did beat the world’s best Go player – a decade ahead of time in terms of the predictions! 

McAfee went on to highlight another element, true in both Go and chess, which will be increasingly true in every domain in which machines are learning, namely: that machines are filled with surprises.  They not only do better in some domains now than the best human, but they go about doing tasks in ways that are different than humans.  McAfee illustrated a move in Go that the machine did that no human would ever do; it so surprised the best player in the world that he got up out of this chair and walked around the room, as he just couldn’t believe it (in part because it seemed like a move that a novice would make).  And yet the machine won that game.  So, we’re actually at an inflection point where humans are learning from software how to play these games both better and differently (i.e., more like a computer).

Now, you can add to these examples to illustrate a larger point of special interest to the lawtech crowd: that we are closer and closer to experiencing a “Turing test” moment in a number of domains, where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish AI from human responses.  Because we are living in a world where things are happening at such an accelerated pace, it wouldn’t surprise me, in five years, that Legaltech (oops—Legalweek) will be mostly about the law of AI and robots – including the ethics of handling extremely smart robots that mimic human behavior and then some.  I am not a believer that soon we will be in peril based on the world being taken over by super-intelligent machines.  But I do believe that we will be increasingly reliant on software, and that software will perform at a level that the Alexas and Siris of the future will seem to be our buddies, not just limited automated personal assistants.  We won’t even need screens anymore — we’ll simply be giving verbal instructions to these devices.  You already see that increasingly with not only Amazon Echo’s Alexa but in smart dolls and a range of other products.  But all this also means that Alexa and the other devices are accumulating data (ESI) from the people using them — all of which is grist for the e-discovery mill.  This world of IoT, smart devices, and smart analytics, is what McAfee and others are talking about: the acceleration in technological change is itself accelerating!

I think all of this means an even more interesting Legaltech of the future. Predictive coding technology was the hot topic at Legaltech about four years ago, after Judge Peck issued his ruling in DaSilva Moore.  (I think there were a dozen or more panels on technology assisted review and predictive coding that year.)  More recently we’ve seen a wave of panels on information governance and data analytics – which I plead guilty to being a part of.  As I said, I think we are now looking at a world of smart devices, IoT, AI, and robotics that will soon dominate the conversation in raising lots of ethical issues.  Indeed, I just read that in the EU an effort has been initiated to have a committee looking into the ethics of robots and human interaction with robots.  So, we are living in very, very interesting and exciting times.  That’s what you get when you’re living in an exponentially growing world of data. 

Last year, there were a few a notable case law decisions related to the use of Technology Assisted Review.  How do you think those cases impacted the use and acceptance of TAR?

I think you’re seeing a more sophisticated level on the part of a greater slice of the judiciary in predictive coding cases; it isn’t simply the same cadre of judges providing the rulings.  There are also new rulings in the UK, Ireland, and Australia, and that is all good.  I’m not going to talk in detail about any one case, but I think that there is a trend line that can be seen where the lurking question in complex, document-intensive e-discovery cases is whether a party acted reasonably in not using some form of advanced search and review techniques, like technology assisted review.   As Judge Peck said in the Hyles case, we’re not there yet, but it seems to me that’s where the hockey puck will be soon.

If I’m right, and the burden will be to explain why one didn’t use advanced search methods, it follows that clients should be demanding the greater efficiencies that can be obtained through such methods. Granted, you have to get past a certain level of financial risk in a case to justify use of advanced search methods.  Obviously, employing keywords and even manual searching in very small collections is still perfectly viable. But when you’re in complex litigation of a certain size, it is unfathomable to me that a major Fortune 500 corporation wouldn’t at least game out the cost of using traditional manual search methods supplemented by keywords, versus the use of some advanced software to supplement those older, “tried and true” methods.  As you know, I am a very big advocate for all of us looking into these issues, not just to benefit clients in eDiscovery but also across all kinds of legal engagements.

I realize I have been an evangelist for advanced search techniques.  So let me just quote, for the record here, a couple of sentences I’ve written as part of an Introduction to the book Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner (link above):  “As the book goes to print, there appear to be voices in the profession questioning whether predictive coding has been oversold or overhyped and pointing to resistance in some quarters to wholesale embrace of the types of algorithmics and analytics on display throughout this volume.  Notwithstanding these critics, the editors of this volume remain serene in their certainty that the chapters of this book represent the future of eDiscovery and the legal profession as it will come to be practiced into the foreseeable future by a larger and larger contingent of lawyers.  Of course, for some, the prospect of needing to be technically competent in advanced search techniques may lead to considerations of early retirement. For others, the idea that lawyers may benefit by embracing predictive coding and other advanced technologies is exhilarating.  We hope this book inspires the latter feeling on the part of the reader.”

Since you have mentioned your book, tell us more about its contents.

This book was a labor of love, as no one will be getting any royalties!  Michael Berman originally suggested to me that this volume would be a useful addition to the legal literature, and over the next two-plus years he and I, with the able assistance of Ralph Losey, managed to pull off getting the best minds in the profession to contribute content and to work towards publication.  I think this is a volume that speaks not only to practitioners “inside the bubble” (i.e., at Legaltech or at places like The Sedona Conference®), but also to a larger contingent of lawyers who don’t know about the subject in any depth and wish to learn.  These are lawyers who earnestly want to be technologically competent under ABA Model Rule 1.1, and who are aware of a growing body of bar guidance, including the recent California Bar opinion on e-discovery competence.   I think more and more, especially in complex cases, such competency means being at least aware of emerging, advanced search and document review techniques.  That may not exactly be easy for some lawyers (especially in my age cohort), but I am sure it will be easier for the generation succeeding us. 

As for some specifics, Judge Andrew Peck wrote the book’s Foreword, Maura Grossman and Gordon Cormack were very generous in not only submitting an expert, original chapter (“A Tour of TAR”), but also allowing us to reprint their glossary of TAR terms.   Phil Favro provided a supplement to his leading article with Judge John Facciola on seed sets and privilege, and Judge Waxse’s important (and controversial) law review article on courts being called upon to apply a Daubert test for advanced search is included.

Most of the 20 chapters in the book are original. There is a really excellent chapter about antitrust law and predictive coding, by Robert Keeling and Jeffrey Sharer.  There is a wonderful chapter on emerging e-discovery standards by Gil Keteltas, Karin Jenson and James Sherer.  Ronni Solomon and her colleagues at King & Spalding wrote a chapter on the defensibility of TAR for a big firm on the defense side.  The late Bill Butterfield and Jeannine Kenney wrote a chapter spelling out from the plaintiff’s side considerations about how to use predictive coding in a fair way.  William Hamilton supplied a much-needed chapter discussing predictive coding for small cases.  Vincent Catanzano, Sandra Rampersaud, and Samantha Greene contributed chapter on setting up TAR protocols.  There are several other chapters talking about information governance written by Sandy Serkes, Leigh Isaacs, and including a reprint of Bennett Borden’s and my law review on “Finding the Signal in the Noise” (with a new coda).  Part of the book provides perspectives from other leading PhDs whom I’ve worked with during the TREC Legal Track and at other workshops, including Doug Oard, Dave Lewis, and William Webber.  Bruce Hedin and colleagues at H5 supplied a thought provoking chapter talking about standards in the field in the use of advanced search. Kathryn Hume educates us on deep learning.   Michael Berman and I (with co-authors), and Ralph Losey, each supplied additional articles rounding out the volume.

Although no one expects the book to be a best-seller on Amazon, I really believe the 650 pages of text will be of interest to readers of your column Doug, and so I do recommend checking it out while supplies last (kidding)!

Part 2 of Jason’s interview will be published on Monday.

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.

Google Required to Hand Over Foreign Stored Emails to Justice Department: eDiscovery Case Law

In the ruling In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google, Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter ordered Google to comply with a search warrant to produce foreign-stored emails, disagreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in the Microsoft Ireland warrant case, where Microsoft was not ordered to provide access to emails in that ruling.

In August 2016, the court issued two search warrants, pursuant to section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which required Google to disclose electronic data held in the accounts of targets in two separate criminal investigations to agents of the FBI.  Each account holder resided in the US, the crimes they are suspected of committing occurred solely in the US, and the electronic data at issue was exchanged between persons located in the United States.

Google partially complied with the warrants by producing data that is within the scope of the warrants that it could confirm is stored on its servers located in the US, but refused to produce other data required to be produced by the warrants that was stored on servers located out of the US, relying on the recent decision of a panel of the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit, Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016), where the Second Circuit denied the government’s efforts to compel Microsoft to provide emails in that case.

In ruling that Google has to comply with the warrant in full, Judge Rueter stated that “Under the facts before this court, the conduct relevant to the SCA’s focus will occur in the United States. That is, the invasions of privacy will occur in the United States; the searches of the electronic data disclosed by Google pursuant to the warrants will occur in the United States when the FBI reviews the copies of the requested data in Pennsylvania. These cases, therefore, involve a permissible domestic application of the SCA, even if other conduct (the electronic transfer of data) occurs abroad.”

Judge Rueter also indicated that he “agrees with the Second Circuit’s reliance upon Fourth Amendment principles, but respectfully disagrees with the Second Circuit’s analysis regarding the location of the seizure and the invasion of privacy”, noting that “[e]lectronically transferring data from a server in a foreign country to Google’s data center in California does not amount to a ‘seizure’ because there is no meaningful interference with the account holder’s possessory interest in the user data. Indeed, according to the Stipulation entered into by Google and the Government, Google regularly transfers user data from one data center to another without the customer’s knowledge. Such transfers do not interfere with the customer’s access or possessory interest in the user data.”

Judge Rueter also noted that the searches would occur in the US, stating that “Even though the retrieval of the electronic data by Google from its multiple data centers abroad has the potential for an invasion of privacy, the actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States.”  As a result, Judge Rueter granted the Government’s motions to compel Google to comply with the search warrants.

So, what do you think?  Should the location of the data or the location of the searches for the data determine whether it is subject to foreign data privacy considerations?  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.

Mary Mack of ACEDS: eDiscovery Trends

This is the third 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 Mary Mack of ACEDS.  Mary is the Executive Director of the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).  E-discovery luminary and recipient of the Masters Conference Educator of the Year 2016, Mary provides ACEDS and its membership more than a decade of strong credibility and sound leadership within the e-discovery community. Mary is the author of A Process of Illumination: The Practical Guide to Electronic Discovery, considered by many to be the first popular book on e-discovery. She is the co-editor of the Thomson Reuters West treatise, eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel.

What are your expectations of LTNY this year?

{Interviewed Mary the first morning when the conference had really just started}

My biggest expectation is that I’m going to see people and that I’m going to renew relationships.  For example, I just bumped into Hampton Coley, whom I worked with maybe seven years ago and haven’t seen since we worked together.  Legaltech is the place where that’s possible.  But, some of the people that I would normally expect to be here, like Tom O’Connor, aren’t here this year.

From an educational standpoint, unfortunately most of the action is off the floor and away from the sessions, but I was looking at some of those sessions and they’re stellar.  There are some great educational sessions lined up at the show this year.  So, if I am fortunate enough to have an appointment drop out, I’m going to jump into a session or two.

How many years have you been coming to LTNY and how do you think the show has evolved over that time?

I’ve been coming to the show over ten years.  I think there was a time, maybe 2006 or 2007, where it was like everybody and their brother became an eDiscovery company.  Even the copy people had a sign for eDiscovery at their booths.  Now, I think LTNY has evolved to where it’s about an 80% eDiscovery show with 20% around the edges and I think the part that’s around the edges is really interesting.  I’m always looking for things that are going to impact eDiscovery that aren’t quite eDiscovery yet and we saw some of that in years past with Information Governance and with privacy, and now we’re seeing it with cybersecurity.

That was the topic of the event that we had last night – the state of the industry as it relates to eDiscovery and cybersecurity.  I think this year won’t quite be the breakout year for cybersecurity, but it will be the “seed planting” year for cybersecurity, with a look at how cybersecurity informs eDiscovery and how eDiscovery informs cybersecurity.  Because it’s not enough just to keep people out of your network, you need to prosecute, you need evidence and you need that evidence to be authentic.

As for the event we had last night, it was really fantastic.  Jared Cosegilia of Tru Staffing Partners did a good job of organizing the presentation and even had us rehearsing the transitions and breaks.  We were able to put our survey data out for people who are really interested in both security and privacy in our community.  We had some surprising things in our survey, like the fact that over half of the people participating are more than ten years tenured in the industry.  But, what I heard afterward is that government agencies in particular are looking for the younger eDiscovery professionals and they’re having a hard time finding them.  Most eDiscovery professionals are considerably tenured, but the agencies are looking for people that can come in at an entry level salary expectation that’s much different than what we have now.

I think the reason for that is that there really are no schools, other than Bryan University perhaps, with a degree for eDiscovery.  We have courses at UC Irvine and we’re looking at other law schools to teach eDiscovery.  Some law schools have a full course on eDiscovery; in other schools, it’s just one credit now.  But, there’s not an educational feeding ground for the young talent where that young talent has to come in and “earn their stripes”.  The ones who do come in are maybe paralegals, maybe legal assistants or maybe they’re an existing person in a corporation and that’s how they get in.  They’re just not coming fresh out of school.

With that in mind, we’ve seen a recent trend toward 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.  What impact do you think those developments will have on attorneys becoming more educated about technology?

I think the technology CLE requirement in Florida is very exciting.  From what I understand, they expected it to be controversial and it wasn’t – it was actually embraced.  So, I think that with those requirements, attorneys will embrace the opportunities to learn more about eDiscovery and I think Florida will see a nice “bump” there in attorney knowledge, like California did when they addressed knowledge of eDiscovery specifically in their formal opinion.  I think it will permeate outside of the “bubble” because the evidence is primarily electronic these days.  Sure, sometimes you have your signed papers and handwritten notes, but most evidence is originating in the digital world and it needs to be admitted and produced in the digital world.  I think that once that attorneys understand the technology and it becomes demystified and the fear goes away, I think that we’ll see them adopt and even embrace it.

Last year, ACEDS presented a handful of webinars and conference sessions related to automation and Technology Assisted Review and, as you’ll recall, there was lively discussion about TAR during those presentations, and even more lively discussions about TAR after those presentations.  Where do you feel we are today with regard to the acceptance of Technology Assisted Review?

It’s clearly being more and more accepted.  The Supreme Court of Victoria just explicitly approved it in the Rules for Australia.  Judge Peck, once again, wrote an opinion and highlighted how it is a process – it’s not just about the Technology Assisted Review, it’s also about how you perform the Technology Assisted Review.  At the conferences that I attend, when you ask audiences for a show of hands of those who have used TAR, you used to get maybe one or two hands raised.  Now, about half to three quarters of the audience raises their hands to the question of whether they’ve used TAR before.  So, I think the acceptance is there and it will take a different kind of lawyer to manage the reviews.  It’s not going to be your typical contract review attorney, it’s going to be more of a subject matter expert attorney that gets involved.  For the contract review attorneys, it’s an opportunity (and also a challenge) to “up-level” themselves to stay competitive and marketable.

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

We’ve got a couple of big things happening: one that’s stealth and one that’s not stealth.  I’ll tell you first about the “not stealth” one: we received approval to provide pro bono scholarships for any organization working on Access to Justice.  Regardless whether it’s a corporate or law firm pro bono program, a law school clinic, an advocacy organization, the public defender’s victims’ rights organizations, any of these types of programs can sponsor a scholarship.  The only requirement that we have is that they perform eight hours of pro bono work in order to apply and then they can put whatever other requirements on it that they want.

Organizations who qualify can just pick somebody or hold a contest or whatever they want to do and we will enroll them in eDiscovery essentials, which is a $600 course that will give them an understanding of the functional landscape of eDiscovery, from soup to nuts, with a certificate to reflect completion of that course.  And, that will put them on the path to eDiscovery.  With what I was saying earlier about how government agencies can’t find those entry level people that they seek, part of the reason for that is that they can’t afford to get themselves educated.  So, this is a way for ACEDS to contribute to Access to Justice while also helping young people get that education.

The “stealth” item to mention is that we’re going to provide some cyber training.  We’re in beta and don’t have a press release or anything yet, but we’re working with Roy Zur, who gave a wonderful cybersecurity presentation at our national conference last year, on a project called “Cybint”.  He has put together an assessment and training program, with “bite size” training segments of around ten minutes each.  Once you take the assessment, you’ll know what training you need and you can focus on those specific ten minute training sessions to “up-level” your skills and start to bridge the gap between eDiscovery and cybersecurity.

Thanks, Mary, for participating in the interview!

Thank you, Doug, for your consistent and excellent reporting and blogging.

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.

David Horrigan of kCura: eDiscovery Trends

This is the second 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 David Horrigan of kCura, the developers of Relativity.  David is the E-Discovery Counsel and Legal Content Director at kCura.  An attorney, law school guest lecturer, e-discovery industry analyst, and award-winning journalist, David has served as counsel at the Entertainment Software Association, reporter and assistant editor at The National Law Journal, and analyst and counsel at 451 Research. He serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Legaltech News and the Data Law Board of Advisors at the Yeshiva University Cardozo Law School. David holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Florida, and he studied international law at Universiteit Leiden in the Netherlands.  He’s licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia.

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

This year, ALM expanded the conference from Legaltech to Legalweek, bringing more legal issues into a larger overall event.  I think many speakers did a great job in showing how technology relates to all areas of the law.  For instance, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky did an outstanding job of bringing other areas of the law into the rest of the program.  Many sessions did an excellent job of really hitting home how legal technology and the law aren’t just for programmers and legal teams—they affect everyday life.

For example, I liked how Dean Chemerinsky mentioned that, when he teaches Katz v. United States, it’s become clear to him that many of his law students don’t know what a telephone booth is.  His example illustrates not only that Superman needs to find a new place to change clothes, it shows how technology changes every day life and highlights the importance of legal technology in eDiscovery.

This is my second Legaltech with kCura, but I’ve come to many Legaltech shows in New York over the past fifteen years or so, and I was first a speaker at Legaltech in 2001, and as an ALM alumnus from The National Law Journal and Legaltech News, it’s always great to come back.  Having been here as a journalist, an in-house counsel, an industry analyst, and now representing kCura, I’ve seen a lot of change over the years. One of my favorite tales of technological change since my first Legaltech is that in the early part of the last decade, you could walk the Exhibit Hall and visit vendors with metadata wiping software.  Such software is probably still great for corporate counsel negotiating contracts, but with today’s rules and case law, such metadata wiping would probably get an e-discovery lawyer sanctioned or in front of a bar ethics board.

One of the things I enjoy about being here with kCura that differs from my years at 451 Research is the ability to attend and live-tweet sessions where I’m not speaking.  For the most part, when I was at 451, I was able to attend only the sessions where I was speaking because I was in back-to-back briefings with various eDiscovery vendors.  Of course, I have to admit I miss the briefings with the many great people in the eDiscovery profession and industry.  We live in contentious times, and I think it says a lot about the people in our industry that in my years with 451, I almost never heard eDiscovery vendors disparage each other.  Sure, they said they’re software and services were better, but you didn’t hear people saying, ‘That guy’s software is crap.’

Speaking about your role as a speaker, I noticed that you’re a panelist on one session related to “new frontiers” for international discovery.  With all of the developments in the past year related to data privacy issues, where do you think we’re heading from here?

Over the next 17 months, people will certainly be focusing on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will go into effect in May of 2018.  The GDPR would have certainly been a game changer before the election of the current administration, but now it is going to be a real game changer because, as you know, the United States does not meet adequate level of data protection under Article 25(6) of the 1995 Directive, and the GDPR will bring even stronger, harmonized requirements.  Call me crazy, but I don’t think the new administration is going to be very receptive to changing US laws and regulations to harmonize them with the laws of other nations.  Of course, we tend to be very Euro-centric in our international analyses of cross-boarder issues.

Last year, you and I participated on a couple of panel discussions involving Technology Assisted Review (TAR) where there was spirited discussion about the current state of acceptance of TAR, both during and after those panel discussions.  Where do you feel we stand with regard to the current state of acceptance of TAR?

It’s clearly mainstream, and now we can add Australia as the fourth nation to join the TAR club of the United States, Ireland, and the United Kingdom with a state supreme court practice notes approving the use of TAR.  Although it’s not a judicial decision—instead being a practice note from the Supreme Court of Victoria, I think it’s a big development.  I think that acceptance of TAR is internationally growing.  And, as Judge Peck said in Hyles v. New York City last summer, it’s generally accepted that if a producing party wants to use TAR, it can.

As far as the implementation of TAR, I really think we’re about to the stage where TAR is mainstream.  Of course, it’s not used in every case, but TAR usage numbers have been increasing progressively, and I don’t expect any change there.

Do you think that TAR is a viable candidate to be used in all cases?

Some firms have said they run it on everything, and our polling as well as that of others, including Norton Rose Fulbright, show substantial increases in TAR use.  Of course, as with any eDiscovery tool, there are some very small matters when you might not need TAR.  It’s not really a question of whether you can use TAR on a small case – you can – you just might not need to use it on a small case.  Having said that, in the Big Data era of 2017, there are now data-heavy matters where you really do need to use TAR.

There also seems to be quite a bit of debate as to whether TAR can be used in combination with keyword search.  What are your thoughts about that?

When I was at 451 Research, I used to call it “assisted review technologies” (plural).  Because there are so many different choices, I don’t think any of them is necessarily right or wrong.  I think that they’re just different ways to “crack the nut.”  There are times and places for keyword search.  Despite what many have said TAR and keywords is not a zero sum game. 

Another 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?

It has to.  These are mandatory ethics rules.  Ethics rules are not something you can choose to follow “a la carte” – if your state passes a rule, you have to follow it.  Because everyone’s lives are changing so much due to the proliferation of technology, the “luddite” lawyer who says “I went to law school so that I can avoid statistics” is in for a rude awakening.  Clearly, technology is a part of the practice of law.  Even most two year olds can swipe an iPad or an iPhone – if the two year olds are starting to get technology, lawyers need to get on board.

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

Obviously, the cloud is a big issue and, at kCura, we’re taking the hybrid approach.  There’s a place for the on-premises approach and a place for the cloud approach and kCura is taking the hybrid approach of providing solutions to support both approaches.  And, as always, we’re enthusiastic about our partnerships, including the new partnership we’ve just announced with CloudNine.

Thanks, David, 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.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Defines Narrowed Scope for Requests for Social Media Data: eDiscovery Case Law

In Scott v. United States Postal Service, No. 15-712-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes granted the defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery in part, ordering the plaintiff to provide complete responses to the defendant’s interrogatory and request for production, but only after she limited the scope of both requests, determining them to be “overly broad”.

Case Background

In this personal injury case stemming from an automobile accident involving a vehicle driven by a United States Postal Service worker while that worker was on the job, the defendant requested via Interrogatory for the plaintiff to “Identify any and all social media (including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter)” she had used since June 6, 2014 (the date of the accident).  The defendant also requested (via Request for Production) for the plaintiff to “Produce all postings related to any type of physical or athletic activities from June 6, 2014, to present on all social media websites, including, but not limited to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.”

In her written discovery responses, Plaintiff objected to each of these requests by asserting that “the information requested is inclement, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

The defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff in July 2016, explaining that it had a good faith basis for believing that the plaintiff had posted photographs and other information on social media about her activities since the accident, which involve physical activity (including one photograph on Facebook account showing the plaintiff and her fiancé in ski attire on a snow covered mountain), and that such information is relevant to the case.

After efforts to confer were unable to resolve the dispute, the defendant filed its Motion to Compel in September 2016.  In response, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s request for all of her social media photos was overly broad because it would require the production of a significant amount of irrelevant information.  In its Reply Memorandum, the defendant maintained that the plaintiff had waived her objections to the discovery requests at issue and that the defendant was entitled to the information and documents requested because they are relevant to the plaintiff’s personal injury claims.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that “Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s argument that her failure to timely voice adequate objections to the discovery requests constitutes a waiver of any objection she may have to the discovery requests”, Judge Wilder-Doomes found that the “boilerplate” language used by the plaintiff in objecting “does not suffice to assert a valid objection to the discovery requests” and found that the plaintiff had waived her objections to the discovery requests.

Despite that ruling, Judge Wilder-Doomes found the discovery requests to be “overbroad” and decided to “limit the requests in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)”.  With regard to the Interrogatory, Judge Wilder-Doomes limited the request to “identifying all social media accounts that Plaintiff has used since the underlying accident on June 6, 2014, her usernames, whether she has accessed the accounts since the accident, and the last time she accessed the accounts”.

With regard to the Request for Production, she limited the request to “all of Plaintiff’s social media postings, including photographs, since the June 6, 2014 accident that: (1) refer or relate to the physical injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of the accident and any treatment she received therefor; or (2) reflect physical capabilities that are inconsistent with the injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of the accident.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts limit the scope of discovery requests?  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.

Brad Jenkins of CloudNine: eDiscovery Trends

This is the first 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 Brad Jenkins of CloudNine™.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad also has authored several articles on document management and litigation support issues, and has appeared as a speaker before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.  He’s also my boss!  🙂

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

Once again, a majority of my time at LTNY was spent in meetings with colleagues and business partners as CloudNine had a suite and we had several meetings set up over the course of the three days of the show.  It seems that the meetings outside the show have become as big as the show itself.  Several people that I met with had hardly spent any time (if any) at the show when I met with them.  Because it’s the biggest conference of the year, LTNY provides a unique opportunity for face to face meetings you don’t get during the rest of the year, so it pays to take advantage of that opportunity.  Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of attending most of the conference itself.

I was able to attend some of the conference and spent a little time in the exhibit hall.  Based on what I saw, attendance seemed down this year and some of the exhibitors that I spoke with seemed to agree.  I assume the decision by ALM to charge a fee for the Exhibits Plus passes for the first time ever had an impact on attendance in the exhibit hall.  Not surprisingly, some criticized that decision, so it will be interesting to see if exhibitors push back on that and if ALM decides to charge that fee again next year.

Regardless, with so many opportunities for providers to reach prospects in a less expensive manner and with a market that clearly appears to be consolidating, I would expect that it will continue to be a challenge for ALM to retain exhibitors.  Over the past few years, the number of exhibitors have dropped and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that trend continue unless ALM gets creative in identifying new ways to attract potential exhibitors to the conference.

What about general industry trends?  Are there any notable trends that you’ve observed?

Last year, I noted a clear trend toward SaaS automation within eDiscovery and I think it’s clear that trend has not only continued, but expanded.  In addition to the investment in some automation providers, and the emergence of others like our company, CloudNine, we’ve seen several of the “big boys” (such as Ipro, Thomson Reuters and kCura) roll out their own cloud-based automation initiatives.  In the past year, we also saw organizations like Gartner acknowledge that cloud eDiscovery solutions are gaining momentum in the market due to their ease of use and competitive and straightforward pricing structures.  The move to the cloud for eDiscovery reflects a similar migration to the cloud within organizations for everything from SalesForce.com to Office 365.  In fact, Forbes.com recently published an article that reflected a prediction that, by 2020, 92% of everything we do will be in the cloud.  So, it makes sense that eDiscovery solutions would reflect that trend.

Another trend that has been happening for a few years and is certainly accelerating is the move to the left of the EDRM model for discovery and analytics.  With estimates of data doubling in organizations every 1.2 years, organizations are certainly having to turn to technology to address the challenges associated with that explosion of data.  The need for discovery is no longer initiated just by trigger events such as litigation or investigations – the need for organizations to perform discovery is a perpetual need.  You’re seeing organizations beginning to focus on data discovery to explore patterns and trends within unstructured data, even at the point of data creation, to gather insight into the data they have.  Then, when those trigger events occur, organizations are progressing into more traditional legal discovery to identify, preserve, collect, process, analyze, review and produce key ESI to support legal or investigative activities.  I think you’ll see that trend toward an increased focus on data discovery continue to accelerate as a way for organizations to address the challenges associated with the explosion of data in their environments.

One last trend that I’ll mention is the growing number of state bar associations that have adopted some sort of expectation or guidance for technology competence among their bar members.  I believe that there are 26 states now that have adopted some version of Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 and Florida has become the first state to actually mandate technology CLE for their attorneys – three hours of technology CLE over a three year period.  At CloudNine, we believe that educated clients make the best clients and we’ve tried to do our part for the past several years to help educate the legal profession with our blog and, this year, we are adding educational webcasts (with CLE certification in some states) to help educate lawyers.  While I think we still have a long way to go before the legal profession is generally knowledgeable about technology, I think the increased focus on technology competence along with the continued trend toward simplified discovery automation puts attorneys in a better position than ever to use technology to support their discovery needs.

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

In addition to the educational webcasts that we have started conducting this year, CloudNine recently announced our latest accomplishment in simplified discovery automation with our integration with Relativity that provides Relativity users with a client application that automates the upload, processing, and ingestion of ESI into Relativity, directly from their desktop.  Just as CloudNine users have been able to automate the upload, processing, and ingestion of ESI into CloudNine for several years now, the universe of more than 150,000 Relativity users will now be able to do the same.

We have several other new features and capabilities that provide simplified discovery automation capabilities to our clients that are also in the works and I look forward to having more information to share on those soon.

We are also very active in the data discovery space that I referred to earlier, providing solutions and assistance to help clients address their data discovery needs.  We’re finding that the needs of organizations to gain insight into their data occurs long before litigation and other events trigger the duty of those organizations and CloudNine is at the forefront in helping organizations address their data discovery needs.

As I said during last year’s interview, we feel that CloudNine is the leader in simplifying discovery automation and our unique combination of Speed, Simplicity, Security and Services enables CloudNine to simplify discovery for our clients.  That continues to be our mission as a company and has been throughout our more than 14 years as a company assisting our clients.

Thanks, Brad, 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.

Metadata Plays Key Role in $10.8 Million Whistleblower Lawsuit Verdict: eDiscovery Case Law

Earlier this month, federal jurors awarded nearly $8 million to the former general counsel of a company who says he was fired because he blew the whistle on his company’s potential violation of a foreign bribery law.  That award will increase to $10.8 million because the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the doubling of back pay for whistleblower retaliation.

An article in The Recorder (Ousted Bio-Rad GC Wins Whistleblower Case, written by David Ruiz) stated that a federal jury sided with former Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. general counsel Sanford “Sandy” Wadler in his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the company, after deliberating for less than three hours.

The jury awarded Wadler $2.9 million in back pay and stock compensation and $5 million for punitive damages.

“I’m extraordinarily grateful to the jury for its very thoughtful verdict in finding that whistleblowers need protection,” lead attorney James Wagstaffe (of law firm Kerr & Wagstaffe) said immediately after the verdict was read. “You’re not supposed to fault whistleblowers for raising legitimate concerns about potential corruption.”

Wagstaffe also said that back pay damages are doubled, increasing the total award to $10.8 million.

Wadler, who was fired from his post at Bio-Rad in June 2013, maintained that he was forced out because he blew the whistle on potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations by the company in China.  Jurors found that Wadler’s whistleblowing activities were a significant reason the company fired him in June of that year.

Wadler’s lawyers at Kerr & Wagstaffe were able to undermine some company testimony by pointing to a lack of documentation about Wadler’s alleged outbursts, partly by repeatedly returning to the last review that Wadler received while on the job in December 2012, which was largely positive.

A key aspect of the jury’s decision related to the metadata associated with Wadler’s most recent performance evaluation, which was apparently dated in April 2013.  Before the jury reached its verdict, it asked about the timing of that performance evaluation. According to Wagstaffe, metadata showed the performance evaluation was actually created in July 2013, a full month after Wadler’s termination. The jury asked if the date referred to the document’s creation or its modification. It referred to creation, said U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, who presided over the case.

In an interview with Courthouse News, Wagstaffe said the metadata evidence helped tip the scale in Wadler’s favor and that the “fake job review” (his words, not mine) was a major piece of evidence that helped tip the scale.

Hat tip to Sharon Nelson at Ride the Lightning for her post about the story.

So, what do you think?  Can metadata prove when a document was created?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

P.S. — Happy Valentine’s Day!

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.

Announcing Seventh Annual LTNY Thought Leader Series!: eDiscovery Trends

The annual appearance of the dancing light bulb can only mean one thing – it’s time for another thought leader series!  Over our nearly 6 1/2 years of our existence, eDiscovery Daily has published several thought leader interviews from various thought leaders throughout the eDiscovery community, including an annual series of interviews at LegalTech New York (LTNY), aka LegalWeek.  For the seventh(!) consecutive year, we’re pleased to introduce the schedule for this year’s series, which will begin Wednesday, February 15.

Here are the interviews that we will be publishing over the next few weeks:

Wednesday, February 15: Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine™.  Brad has over 20 years of experience as an entrepreneur, as well as 15 years leading customer focused companies in the litigation technology arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Friday, February 17: David Horrigan, E-Discovery Counsel and Legal Content Director, kCura.  An attorney, law school guest lecturer, e-discovery industry analyst, and award-winning journalist, David has served as counsel at the Entertainment Software Association, reporter and assistant editor at The National Law Journal, and analyst and counsel at 451 Research. He serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Legaltech News and the Data Law Board of Advisors at the Yeshiva University Cardozo Law School. David holds a Juris Doctor from the University of Florida, and he studied international law at Universiteit Leiden in the Netherlands.

Monday, February 20: Mary Mack, Executive Director of the Association of Certified eDiscovery Specialists (ACEDS).  E-discovery luminary and recipient of the Masters Conference Educator of the Year 2016, Mary provides ACEDS and its membership more than a decade of strong credibility and sound leadership within the e-discovery community. Mary is the author of A Process of Illumination: The Practical Guide to Electronic Discovery, considered by many to be the first popular book on e-discovery. She is the co-editor of the Thomson Reuters West treatise, eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel.

Wednesday, February 22: George Socha, Managing Director, Forensic Technology Services, 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.

Friday, February 24: Jason R. Baron, Of Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Part 1 and Part 2.  Jason is a member of Drinker Biddle’s Information Governance and eDiscovery practice and co-chair of the Information Governance Initiative.  An internationally recognized speaker and author on the preservation of electronic documents, Jason previously served as the first Director of Litigation for the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, and as trial lawyer and senior counsel at the Department of Justice.  He also was a founding co-coordinator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology TREC Legal Track, a multi-year international information retrieval project devoted to evaluating search issues in a legal context.  He served as editor of the recently published ABA book, Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner.

Monday, February 27: Craig Ball, Law Offices of Craig D. Ball, P.C., Part 1 and Part 2.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the United States, having delivered almost 2,000 presentations and papers.  Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media and he teaches E-Discovery and Digital Evidence at the University of Texas School of Law.  He currently blogs on eDiscovery topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

Once again, thanks to everyone for their time in participating in these interviews!  Once we publish all of them, we will link to each of them from this post.

Want to look back at previous years’ interviews?  Here are links to our 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012 interview series.

So, 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.