Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Welcome to LegalTech New York 2017!: eDiscovery Trends

Today is the start of LegalWeek 2017 – which includes of course the marquee event LegalTech® New York (LTNY) – and, for the seventh(!) year in a row, eDiscovery Daily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next three days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the New York area, I encourage you to check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and at least 182 exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

While at the show, we will (as always) be interviewing several industry thought leaders to see what they think are the significant trends for 2017 and, which of those are evident at LTNY.  After the show, we will announce the series of thought leader interviews and identify when each will be published.  Mark your calendars!

American Lawyer Media (ALM) has redesigned their site so that all three days are on a single page, so you can’t really perform a “find” anymore to get the number of hits for “discovery” or “information governance” for the day.  Nonetheless, based on Monday’s post, there is still plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

12:45 – 1:45 PM:

EDRM & NOT eDiscovery?

For more than a decade, the EDRM framework has served as guidance during the legal discovery process. Today, these principles are being applied in different scenarios and contexts to assist industries with challenges such as data migration, company mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, and more. Join us for an interactive discussion with a global panel of legal, technical, and corporate operational professionals to discuss these unique applications of the EDRM.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Darren Pauling, Managing Director, Forensic Technology, KPMG; Panelists: Seth Eichenholtz, Head of Electronic Discovery, Mastercard, Jeff Sharer, Partner and Co-Chair – Data Law Practice, Akerman LLP, Julie Heller, Global Head of eDiscovery Programs, AIG.

Shielding the Organization from Data Risk & E-Discovery Failures

Data risk can strike an organization from many angles – from external attacks to internal malfeasance to third party negligence – and have real consequences for the e-discovery process.  How do security risks such as data leakage, shadow IT and third party negligence lead to e-discovery failures? And how can organizations eliminate preventable e-discovery mistakes such as failure to preserve, failure to protect and the inadvertent release of privileged information?  Attend this panel to discuss who bears responsibility and how to prevent failures while instituting best practices in light of the latest case law and new federal rules.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Jason Ray, Managing Director, FTI Technology; Panelists: Ignatius Grande, Senior Discovery Attorney, Hughes Hubbard, Jordan Razza, Senior Counsel and Director of U.S. Litigation, Diageo, Matthew Fisher, Global Head of Records and Information Management, Diageo.

2:15 – 3:15 PM:

eDiscovery, the Cloud & Beyond

Join us for a collaborative conversation about strategies, technologies, and workflows surrounding eDiscovery and the Cloud. Our panel of professionals will discuss pre-migration considerations, implications for preservation and collection, the potential to perform “in place” culling, and opportunities for Information Governance and Litigation Readiness. Being able to adapt strategies to the cloud will provide a roadmap for the future while driving down the cost of eDiscovery.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Brett Trizzino, KPMG; Panelists: Thane Vallette, Associate General Counsel, HP, Bonnie Kennedy, eDiscovery Manager, Delta, Jeff Nass, Senior Counsel – eDiscovery, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Corporate Data Assessments: The New Game Changer?

Where do you begin in implementing a data governance and security plan? How to secure executive buy-in? How can you incorporate shifting regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance? What if you plan to move to Microsoft Office 365? How does this impact your broader data management strategy? These are just some of the questions that can stymie and stall corporate data governance initiatives. Increasingly, corporations are shifting to a data assessment model, which can help proactively 1) identify threats, 2) map an organization’s data universe and 3) help identify an action plan that is presentable to the c-suite. Attend this session to learn more about what these data assessments should incorporate, who should be involved, and how you can customize the data assessment to your own organizational needs.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Jake Frazier, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology; Panelist: Judy S. Lao, Chief Legal Officer, Blackstone Group, Ben Robbins, E-Discovery and Information Governance, LinkedIn, Jenya Moshkovich, Partner, Barnes & Thornburg, Jason C. Stearns, Director, BlackRock.

3:45 – 4:45 PM:

The Future of Analytical Strategies

It’s no secret that company data volumes and the costs to manage them continue to grow at exponential rates. The application of advanced analytical technologies and methodologies are helping company legal departments by providing critical insight into data in effective, timely, and affordable ways. During this discussion, industry professionals will share their strategies and experiences using emerging tools, technologies, and workflows in various combinations to quickly and effectively understand populations of both structured and unstructured data as well as the impact of these approaches on legal departments.

Speakers to include: Moderator: Tom Keegan, KPMG; Panelists: Michelle Six, eDiscovery Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis, Brett Tarr, Counsel-Litigation & E-Discovery, Caesar’s Entertainment, Erick Drobinski, eDiscovery Counsel, Gilead Sciences.

Advice from Counsel: Data and Risk-Intensive Investigations

From corporate fraud and IP theft to regulatory investigations, legal teams are hard-pressed to quickly find, understand and act upon data in investigations. What are some of the strategies that top legal teams use to proactively prepare for data-intensive investigations? Which analytics tools are best suited for uncovering different pieces of information? How can you balance investigative needs with adherence to various data privacy and State Secrets laws? This panel represents the 5th consecutive year FTI will present the results of our annual Advice from Counsel corporate law survey at LTNY. Showcasing case studies and best practices from leading legal teams, this session is one not to miss!

Speakers to include: Moderator: Sophie Ross, Senior Managing Director, FTI Technology; Panelists: Marla Crawford, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Goldman Sachs, Jessica Ross, Counsel, Deutsche Bank, Kelly Clay, Senior Counsel, GSK, Ari Kaplan, Principal, Ari Kaplan Advisors.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today (and for the entire show, since they’re all on one page), click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend LTNY this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

At LegalTech, Word Clouds are the Word: eDiscovery Trends

For many people (including me), today is a travel day for LegalTech New York (LTNY), er, LegalWeek.  On a day like today, it helps me to have an easy topic to write about.  So, thanks to InsideLegal for a great LegalTech observation!

In InsideLegal’s 2017 Legaltech NY Word Cloud (along with 7 year flashback), written by JoAnna Forshee, the site has generated a word cloud from the LTNY agenda to give an overview of what will be covered in the sessions, which visually displays the words/themes included in the event’s agenda of sessions.  That word cloud is above.

Over the years, I’ve observed that eDiscovery is a front and center theme for the show and based on the word cloud (and my own observations), this year is no exception.  “eDiscovery” (along with “legal” and “data”) are the most popular words in the agenda.  Probably even less surprising is that “Sponsored By” is probably the biggest term after those three (along with “technology”) – so “Sponsored By” is on a par with the term “technology” at a technology show.  Yeah, that figures.

Actually, InsideLegal has been doing this every year since 2011 (hey, that’s the first year eDiscovery Daily started covering the show!) and the post also provides the word clouds for the previous 6 years as well.  In each of those years (except for the first one in 2011), the term “eDiscovery” is at least as big (if not bigger) than any other term in the word cloud.  It’s interesting to see other terms that are big in certain years (such as Information Governance in 2014 and 2015).  Only in 2011 is “eDiscovery” not the top term (in that year the biggest terms were “legal” and “technology” (go figure!), as well as “data”.

So, it certainly appears that, once again, eDiscovery will take center stage at the conference this year.  Starting tomorrow, we will point out sessions related to eDiscovery (and Information Governance), so you can plan on which sessions to attend.

So, what do you think?  Are you attending LegalTech this week?  If not, please feel free to join us!  And, 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.

Forgetting about the Other Side of the Law is Criminal: eDiscovery Case Law

In our webcast on Wednesday titled What Every Attorney Should Know About eDiscovery in 2017 (if you missed it, you can watch it here), we covered (as we always do) several key cases that established eDiscovery best practices and trends (and a few with litigants behaving badly).  One of the questions from the audience was to ask whether we could provide any eDiscovery case law related to criminal cases.  Apparently, every example we provided was a civil case.

We will have to add in coverage of criminal cases the next time we conduct a presentation like that.  Regardless, I told the audience that I could send them some links to criminal cases we’ve covered if they wanted to send me an email and a few of the attendees did so.  As a result, I performed a search on the blog (after all, it is a knowledge base with the entire 6+ year history of posts) to look for criminal cases that we’ve covered in the past.

Here are seven posts relating to criminal cases – it’s not an exhaustive list, but it does provide at least a sampling of cases that we’ve covered over the years (#7 is my favorite):

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Require Plaintiff to Re-Produce Data in a More Usable Format: In United States v. Meredith, Kentucky Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III denied the defendant’s motion to compel production of electronically stored information (ESI) by the plaintiff in a usable format, agreeing that the plaintiff had fulfilled its discovery production obligation pertaining to the manner and format of the ESI.

Court Rules that Judges Can Consider Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: Score one for big data analytics.  According to The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last week that sentencing judges may take into account algorithms that score offenders based on their risk of committing future crimes.

Was Spoliation Intentional? Court Will Let Jury Decide: In Cahill v. Dart, Illinois District Judge John Z. Lee adopted, with modifications, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cox regarding the plaintiff’s motion to sanction the defendants for destruction of evidence, indicating that Judge Cox’s proposed sanction would be imposed and also that the jury would be informed that the defendants failed to meet their duty to preserve video, giving the plaintiff the option to argue to the jury that the failure to preserve the video was intentional.

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Hard Drive Turned Over to Criminal Defendant – Eight Years Later: As reported by WRAL.com in Durham, North Carolina, the defense in State of North Carolina v. Raven S. Abaroa filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case for Discovery Violations after the state produced a forensic image of a hard drive (in the middle of trial) that had been locked away in the Durham Police Department for eight years.

Court Denies Criminal Defendant’s Attempt to Quash Twitter Subpoena: In People v. Harris, Criminal Court Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. ruled that the defendant lacked standing to move to quash the prosecution’s subpoena served upon Twitter, a third-party in the case, for records of the defendant’s Twitter account. The defendant was a protester arrested during a march on the Brooklyn Bridge as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and in prosecuting the case, the prosecution sought his Twitter records for the time period relevant to the defendant’s involvement in the march.

Free Trojans with Your Document Production: An Arkansas lawyer representing three Fort Smith police officers in a whistleblower case is seeking sanctions after his computer expert found malware on an external hard drive supplied in response to a discovery request, according to a story by the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

If you know of a recent criminal case (with eDiscovery implications) that you’d like for us to cover, feel free to send me a link to it and I’ll see about covering it.

So, what do you think?  Do you practice law in criminal courts and feel that there’s not enough discussion about eDiscovery for your cases?  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 Orders Plaintiff to Produce Native Format Version of Email Potentially Altered: eDiscovery Case Law

In Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. v. Roles, No. 3:15-cv-234 (W.D. P.A., Dec. 15, 2016), Pennsylvania District Judge Kim R. Gibson granted the portion of the defendant’s motion to compel associated with the request for the plaintiff to produce all copies of a potentially altered email in native format circulated within its organization or any of its agents.

Case Background

In this breach of contract case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had accepted a sales position with a competitor of the plaintiff company (Strawbridge Studios, Inc.) and solicited the plaintiff’s employees and customers in violation of her employment agreement.  During discovery, two different versions of a particular email were produced: one received by a client where the client wrote “Strawbridge[,] No contract.” and the other received by Strawbridge forwarded by an employee (Joseph Segall) of the plaintiff where the client had written “Strawbridge[,] No contract. Beth Roles.”

Both individuals who wrote the emails testified under oath that they did not include the defendant’s name in the emails, leaving the defendant to request leave to amend her counterclaim, alleging that the Strawbridge email was altered by the plaintiff to interfere with her employment at Strawbridge.  The Court granted as unopposed the defendant’s motion for leave to amend.  The defendant then filed a motion to compel production of, among other things, copies of the email in native format from all individuals at the plaintiff’s organization to whom it was forwarded or sent.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Gibson first commented on the relevancy of the email, stating “Based on Roles’s counterclaims, this information falls within the scope of relevant material. Roles’s counterclaims are premised on the allegation that Lifetouch intentionally altered the August 25, 2015 email. Documents illustrating how that email was circulated within Lifetouch relate to whether Lifetouch did in fact alter the August 25, 2015 email, and—if so—how that alteration occurred.”

When assessing the appropriateness of discovery of the emails, Judge Gibson, noting that the plaintiff appeared to have abandoned earlier privilege objections for the emails, noted “Lifetouch appears to argue that it has already produced enough information regarding the emails. Lifetouch states that Roles ‘already has a copy of the email from Segall to Strawbridge,’ and Lifetouch goes on to explain that it has produced PDF versions of the email and the native form of the email as forwarded from Segall to Strawbridge. Further, Lifetouch argues that ‘a copy of that email in native form is not only unreasonable, but not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information based on those emails that have already been produced.’”

In response, Judge Gibson said “These arguments are insufficient to avoid discovery. As an initial matter, the fact that Roles already has a copy of the August 25, 2015 email has no bearing on whether Lifetouch altered the email. The relevance of the documents Roles seeks is derived from their circulation within Lifetouch; a complete picture of how the email was received, discussed, and ultimately sent—or even discussed after it was sent—would be relevant to Roles’s claims. Thus, the fact that Roles already has a copy of the email is irrelevant. And Lifetouch’s argument that it should not have to produce these documents because it already produced a copy of the email from Segall to Strawbridge is unpersuasive for the same reasons.”

Judge Gibson also noted that, while arguing that production in native format is unreasonable, “Lifetouch does not explain what about native production would be unreasonable. Furthermore, Lifetouch specifically agreed ‘to produce . . . electronic documents in native format’ in the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report.”

As a result Judge Gibson granted the portion of the defendant’s motion to compel associated with production of the potentially altered email in native format and also ruled that “attorneys’ fees for this portion of Roles’s Motion to Compel are proper” and ordered the defendant to submit an affidavit detailing the attorneys’ fees she incurred in bringing her Motion to Compel.

So, what do you think?  Was it appropriate to order production of the email in native format?  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.

What Every Attorney Should Know About eDiscovery in 2017: eDiscovery Trends

Early this year, I asked if we’ve (finally) reached the age of technical competence of attorneys.  Perhaps we’re not there yet.  However, CloudNine is sponsoring a webcast today which may help bridge the gap.

Today’s webcast at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT) is titled What Every Attorney Should Know About eDiscovery in 2017 and will be conducted via the BrightTALK network.  This is a one-hour session that Karen DeSouza (Director of Review Services here at CloudNine) and I have conducted for the past couple of years for hundreds of legal professionals for CLE credit in Texas.  It’s a good fundamental session that covers a lot of things attorneys need to know in eDiscovery today, including

  • Key Terms to Know Regarding eDiscovery
  • Phases of the eDiscovery Life Cycle
  • Federal and State Rules Regarding Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
  • Competency Ethical Duties of Attorneys Regarding eDiscovery
  • Important Cases in the Evolution of eDiscovery Best Practices
  • Useful Resources for eDiscovery Continued Education

The webcast is CLE Approved in Texas and Florida.  The Texas approval is 1.0 hours of CLE credit, with 0.25 hours of Ethics credit.  To obtain approval in Texas, you will need to send your information (along with bar number) after the webcast to Karen at kdesouza@cloudnine.com, so that she can log your credit hour.

The Florida approval is for 1.0 hours of CLE, with 1.0 hours of Technology CLE credit.  As you’ll remember, Florida late last year mandated three hours of technology CLE for attorneys over a three year period, starting January 1 of this year.  So, if you’re in the Florida Bar, this an opportunity to get one of those hours!

To sign up for today’s webcast, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you have your eDiscovery fundamentals down?  If not, please feel free to join us!  And, 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.

CloudNine Launches Relativity Integration for eDiscovery Processing Automation

CloudNine, the eDiscovery Company (cloudnine.com) providing eDiscovery automation software and professional services for litigation, investigations, and audits, today announced an integration with Relativity, kCura’s e-discovery platform.

Whether its litigation, information governance, a government request, or an internal investigation, Relativity provides organizations with a complete set of flexible tools to tackle their unique challenges through every phase of a project. As a platform, Relativity allows developer partners like CloudNine to design, build, and integrate applications that extend its functionality.

CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation integration provides Relativity users with a tool that accelerates the upload, processing, and ingestion of electronically stored information (ESI). This complementary capability allows Relativity users to immediately ingest ESI directly from their desktops and automatically move ESI into Relativity.

“It’s great to welcome CloudNine to the Relativity Ecosystem,” said Perry Marchant, vice president of engineering at kCura. “Our vision is to bring the entire e-discovery process and community together in one open, flexible, and connected platform. By integrating with partners like CloudNine, we provide Relativity customers with more options for managing their e-discovery projects.”

CloudNine is now part of the Relativity Ecosystem, which includes applications and integrations built by Relativity developer partners.

“As task automation becomes increasingly relevant to eDiscovery professionals, we are excited to have developed an integration with Relativity that automates critical tasks at the front end of the eDiscovery lifecycle,” said Brad Jenkins, CEO of CloudNine. “With this integration, we can offer the more than 150,000 active Relativity users access to our automation features and increase their flexibility in initiating eDiscovery.”

To learn more about CloudNine and its integration with Relativity, contact us at info@cloudnine.com for a demonstration and discussion.

Try CloudNine at No Risk, Immediately

To sign up for a free trial of CloudNine, visit the CloudNine website (cloudnine.com), request your no cost account, and begin immediately to use the power and precision of simplified eDiscovery automation in your litigation, investigation, and audits efforts.

About CloudNine, The eDiscovery Company

Founded in 2002 and based in Houston, Texas, CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Currently used by more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms as well as in many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine has been recognized in reports and surveys by Gartner, 451 Research, Blue Hill Research, Corporate Counsel Magazine, the New York Journal, and Texas Lawyer. CloudNine also publishes the eDiscovery Daily Blog, a trusted source of information for the legal industry. A leader in eDiscovery automation, you can learn more about CloudNine at 713.462.3885, info@cloudnine.com, or at cloudnine.com.

About kCura

kCura are the developers of the e-discovery software Relativity. Relativity has more than 150,000 active users in more than 40 countries from organizations including the U.S. Department of Justice and more than 195 of the Am Law 200. kCura helps corporations, law firms, and government agencies meet e-discovery challenges by installing Relativity on-premises and providing hosted, on-demand solutions through a global network of partners. kCura has been ranked the 175th fastest-growing technology company in North America on Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500 and named one of Chicago’s Top Workplaces by the Chicago Tribune. Please contact kCura at sales@kcura.com or visit http://www.kcura.com for more information.

For More Information

Rob Robinson, CMO, CloudNine
PR@cloudnine.com
512.934.7531

CloudsNine_400x400_Transparent

“Legalweek, The Experience” 2017 is One Week From Today!: eDiscovery Trends

What is “Legalweek, The Experience”, you say?  LegalWeek is LegalTech New York, along with six other “events-within-an-event” that will be going on next week in New York at the New York Hilton Midtown, starting next Tuesday, January 31 and concluding on Thursday, February 2.  Let’s take a look at some of the sessions and events worth particular note for eDiscovery professionals.

Several Tracks Dedicated to eDiscovery: There is at least one educational track each day devoted to eDiscovery, with Forward Thinking in eDiscovery on Tuesday, The Challenges of Cross-Border eDiscovery and Ediscovery Everywhere on Wednesday and E-Discovery’s New Frontiers on Thursday.  So, there are plenty of eDiscovery related sessions during the conference (and at least three different ways to spell eDiscovery apparently).  There are also at least a couple of tracks related to Information Governance (IG) and Cybersecurity (Data Security and Governance on Tuesday and 2017: Information Governance Challenges and Solutions on Thursday).  So, there are plenty of interesting sessions to check out.

Tuesday Highlights: At 12:45pm, the session EDRM & NOT eDiscovery? looks intriguing – the panelists apparently apply the EDRM framework to non-discovery related challenges such as data migration and company mergers, acquisitions and divestitures.  Another interesting session is at 2:15pm (eDiscovery, the Cloud & Beyond) which looks to discuss IG and litigation readiness for data in the cloud.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention that CloudNine and ACEDS is hosting Drinks with Doug (that’s me!) and Mary (as in Mary Mack, Executive Director of ACEDS!) at Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 148 West 51st Street on Tuesday from 4:00pm to 6:00pm.  It’s a “PowerPoint free” event to hang out with other conference attendees over a drink.  Space is filling up, but you can still RSVP here if you’ll be at the show and want to attend.  Come join us!

Wednesday Highlights: At 9:00am, the session The Effects of the December 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from 3 Perspectives (Judges, Defense & Plaintiff), with panelists like Judges Peck, Rodriguez and Laporte, as well as some notable law firm panelists seems like a can’t miss opportunity to get insight as to how the 2015 Rules changes have impacted discovery.  With recent developments in international discovery privacy laws, The Data Privacy Landscape: Emerging Laws Affecting Cross-Border Discovery at 10:30am should be a good look at a quickly changing landscape.

Thursday Highlights: For those who think eDiscovery is only about litigation, consider attending the 10:30am session E-Discovery for Investigations and Criminal Matters to learn more about its expanding role in new areas of law and corporate governance.  And, it’s always interesting to see thought leaders predict the future, which is what will happen at The Future of e-Discovery Law, Business, and Practice at 2:00pm.

Exhibit Hall: Of course, the largest legal technology conference of the year wouldn’t be complete without an extensive list of exhibitors.  This year, according to my count, there are 182 exhibitors (which is actually a few more than last year, reversing a slide in the number of exhibitors since 2013).  One thing which will be interesting this year: for the first time “Exhibits-Plus” passes are not free like they have been in previous years – it now costs $45 to get into the State of the Industry Address, Keynotes, Emerging Technology and Super Sessions and, of course, the Exhibit Hall (still a lot for the money).  Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how the first-time cost will affect attendance at the show and the Exhibit Hall.

As always, we will cover the show here at eDiscovery Daily, including a list of eDiscovery and IG related sessions each day.  Check here for the sessions you may want to check out at the conference!

So, what do you think?  Are you attending LegalTech, er, LegalWeek next week?  Please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

(The) Winter (eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey) is Coming: eDiscovery Trends

Winter is Coming!  And, by “winter”, I mean the Winter 2017 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey created by Rob Robinson and conducted on his terrific Complex Discovery site.  It’s the second year of the quarterly survey and we covered all four rounds of the survey last year (those results are here, here, here and here).  Now, it’s time for the Winter 2017 Survey to start a new year!

As before, the eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The term ‘business’ represents the economic factors that impact the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services.

This year’s survey consists of nine multiple choice questions focused on factors related to the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services and may be useful for eDiscovery-related business planning.  It’s a simple nine question survey that literally takes about a minute to complete.  Who hasn’t got a minute to provide useful information?  As always, individual answers are kept confidential, with the aggregate results to be published on the Complex Discovery blog upon completion of the response period, which goes through Tuesday, February 28.

The more respondents there are, the more useful the results will be!  What more do you need?  Click here to take the survey yourself.

Now that we have entered a second year for the survey, we can start to evaluate year over year results to differentiate those variations from quarterly fluctuations.  Knowledge is power!

So, what do you think?  Are you confident in the state of business within the eDiscovery industry?  Share your thoughts in the survey and, as always, please share any comments you might have with us or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Home Box Office, Inc.

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.