Close
Enter your
text here

Federal eDiscovery Rules

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.: eDiscovery Trends

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

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball.  A frequent court appointed special master in electronic evidence, Craig is a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs in the United States and abroad, having delivered over 1,700 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.

What are your general observations emerging eDiscovery trends for 2016?

{Interviewed Craig after LTNY, as he did not make it to the show this year}

I skipped LegalTech this year – first time in twenty years – because Mardi Gras was early this year, I chose the circus on the Mississippi over the one on the Hudson.  Still, I got lots of feedback from those who attended LTNY while I was catching beads at 29 parades.  I wanted to see if I’d missed anything of note.  The only trend that emerged was lack of change in the focus of the show.  LTNY is still dominated by electronic discovery as it has been for almost a decade; but, there are continued signs of consolidation within the industry as organizations fold into one another.

Not surprisingly, we don’t see outright failure in this space.  Companies don’t disappear, but instead reach a point where whatever is left is absorbed by a national brand for its equipment or core technology.  So, we’ve seen steady consolidation within the industry, and that trend continues.  As the broader economy goes, so goes litigation and discovery.

Another trend that I’ve observed is an increased focus on eDiscovery automation and considerable growth of, and investment in, eDiscovery automation providers.  What are your thoughts about that trend?

The term “automation” has gotten some play lately.  I’m trying to figure out what each usage means because it’s still in the buzzword phase as marketers deploy the term in the never-ending struggle to differentiate their products. Automated workflows are key to Cloud SaaS offerings.  Hosted systems must be capable of programmatic routines to ingest and process data, effecting ready hand-off of data across processing and review.    An automated SaaS offering should be sufficiently autonomous to facilitate workflow across multiple stages of the EDRM with little manual intervention.

Assuming “automation” means  we can put something into the hopper and it will emerge ready for review or production in forms we were expecting, then automation is a necessary precursor to growth and cost effectiveness in hosted products.  That’s positive for consumers if it means price reductions and commoditization of features of electronic discovery.  It may not be so great for the vendor community unless they can scale up the volume.

In the case Nuvasive v. Madsen Medical, the Court recently vacated an adverse inference instruction sanction previously applied against the plaintiff because of the amendment to Rule 37(e).  Do you see that as a trend for other cases and do you expect that other parties that have been sanctioned will file motions to have their sanctions re-considered?

I don’t think it signals a trend. There are relatively few cases that fall into the transition point.  I don’t expect to see a rash of sanctions being reconsidered by virtue of the latest amendments.

Nuvasive is interesting because it goes to the issue of whether it’s fundamentally fair to impose the new Rules retroactively.  The Rules speak to that issue and make it clear that they can be applied retroactively as long as they operate fairly.  The amendments to the Rules make clear that serious sanctions (such as adverse inference instructions) require proof of an intent to deprive a discovering party of the particular information.  Nuvasive involved serious sanctions, so I can see why the Court might want to weigh amended Rule 37(e).  Still, I’m not sure why the parties and the Court failed to anticipate the Rule changes, as the amendment process was pretty far along in July 2015, when sanctions were imposed.  The tenor of the Court’s opinion in reversing himself was that it was just ‘bad luck’ that the amended rules kicked in when they did.

I think that we will see judicial action once termed “sanctions” couched in less-loaded terms.  After Rule 37(e), Courts will distinguish punitive responses from remedial actions designed to rectify unwarranted failure to preserve relevant information. New Rule 37(e) won’t tie the hands of jurists determined to rectify discovery abuse.  We’re already seeing push back from jurists unwilling to surrender discretionary authority when the facts demand fairness.   As well, we’ve seen at least one case where the Court reversed himself, citing 37(e) as the basis for reconsideration.  As is apparent in Nuvasive and in Judge Francis’ recent order in Cat 3, the Rules are tools, and they can be turned this way and that in determined hands.

Sanctions aren’t going away, and that’s a good thing.  We are mired in the last century when it comes to discovery.  Lawyers need direction, and sanctions opinions supply guidance.  There is little in the way of a “carrot” for eDiscovery – all we have is the “stick.”  If courts fail to sanction incompetence and abuse, then lawyers won’t pursue competence, and parties will continue to “twiddle their thumbs” until evidence disappears.  Few lawyers maliciously hide damaging evidence; but, they’re expert at rationalizing it away or, in the case of e-discovery, content to let their ignorance serve as their armor.  “What you don’t know, can’t hurt me,” is their credo.

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

I’m going back to basics.  Last year was about trying to develop a core curriculum and re-engineer my teaching to make it an engaging foundation in information technology for lawyers.  I hope 2016 will bring an increased ability to push out more information and reach more people.  I’m doing a project for the DC Bar where I will be providing evening CLE programs by live semi-weekly webcasts.  Small groups of motivated people are my sweet spot.  As always, I’m looking forward to this year’s Georgetown University Law School eDiscovery Training Academy, during the first full week in June.  Both the faculty and the students are delightful.  I’ve come to recognize that anyone willing to work at it can learn the technology they need to be formidable in e-discovery in just three solid days.  That’s less time than most of us spend at Starbucks each year.

I’m using the California ethics decision (which we covered here when it was still a Proposed Opinion) as a jumping off point for the concept of core competencies for lawyers.  As you know, the State Bar of California issued an advisory opinion last year identifying nine areas in which lawyers must either be competent in order to accept a case involving eDiscovery or must associate competent counsel or decline representation. That courageous opinion serves as an effective touchstone for talking to lawyers– not just in California, but all over– about the skills they must embrace to be competent to accept a case involving eDiscovery.

There are virtually no cases without electronic evidence, only cases where the lawyers choose to ignore it.  And there is so much more coming!  Never in history have advocates had so much powerful evidence at their disposal, and never have they been so content to look away.  Three days per advocate could change all that—a long weekend.  But, finding the time is only half the battle.  The other half is finding the course that doesn’t give short shrift to the “e” in e-discovery.

Candidly, 2016 is also about taking some time for me.  I’ve been doing 50 to 70 presentations a year for twenty years.  I average about four flights a week; so, I’m hoping to cut all that down by half.  I’m saying “no” more and stopping to smell the roses.  That’s why I’ve gotten a second home in New Orleans, and will spend more time reading, thinking and working on fewer projects with greater focus.  Every teacher needs a sabbatical, right?

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

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

The Sedona Conference Provides Guidance for Protection of Privileged ESI: eDiscovery Best Practices

As volumes of electronically stored information (ESI) stored in the world doubles every 1.2 years, it becomes more challenging to identify the ESI that is subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege or work product protection and log and exclude that ESI from production.  Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was intended to address waiver of such privilege claims and reduce the discovery costs, but many attorneys and judges don’t realize the protections the rule offers.  Now, The Sedona Conference® has issued a new final commentary to “breathe some needed life” into the understanding and use of Rule 502.

Last week, Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference, announced the final release of The Sedona Conference Commentary on Protection of Privileged ESI, which reflects changes made after release of the public comment version in November 2014.

The Commentary attempts to “breathe some needed life” into the understanding and use of Rule 502 by:

  1. Reminding counsel of the basics of the law on privilege in the context of modern document productions;
  2. Encouraging parties, lawyers, and the courts to consider employing Rule 502(d)-type orders in every complex civil matter;
  3. Articulating a “safe harbor” presumption that protects parties from claims of waiver in connection with the inadvertent production of privileged materials, provided that there is adherence to certain basic best practices in the context of ESI privilege review;
  4. Encouraging cooperation among litigants to lower the cost and burden of identifying privileged information; and
  5. Identifying protocols, processes, tools, and techniques that can be used to limit the costs associated with identifying and logging privileged material, and avoiding or resolving disputes relating to the assertion of privileges.

The 64 page Commentary covers the four Principles on Protection of Privileged ESI, which are as follows:

  • Principle 1: Parties and their counsel should undertake to understand the law of privilege and its appropriate application in the context of electronically stored information.
  • Principle 2: Parties, counsel, and courts should make use of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and its state analogues.
  • Principle 3: Parties and their counsel should follow reasonable procedures to avoid the inadvertent production of privileged information.
  • Principle 4: Parties and their counsel should make use of protocols, processes, tools, and technologies to reduce the costs and burdens associated with the identification, logging, and dispute resolution relating to the assertion of privilege.

The Commentary also provides appendices that include an Explanatory Note on Evidence Rule 502 Prepared by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, two model Rule 502(d) orders (including the one we previously discussed here from Hon. Andrew J. Peck (S.D.N.Y.)) and state law analogues of Federal Rule 502 adopted by several states.

You can download the Commentary here.  Consider it an early Christmas present from The Sedona Conference!

So, what do you think? Do you use 502(d) orders in your cases?  If not, why not?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re More Likely to Be Hit by Lightning Than to Be Sanctioned for Non-Preservation of ESI: eDiscovery Best Practices

When it comes to eDiscovery topics, eDiscovery expert (and frequent thought leader interviewee on this blog) Craig Ball doesn’t hesitate to speak his mind and confront the (oftentimes) brutal truth.  In Craig’s latest post in his excellent Ball in Your Court blog, he does so in spades.

In Preservation and Proportionality, Craig sets the stage with a graphic showing a Lady Justice statue with a thumb holding down one end of the scales (I like it!).  He introduces the topic by stating:

“Litigants have been ignoring e-discovery obligations with impunity for so long they’ve come to think of it as an entitlement.  Protected from predators, few have evolved.  But now that opponents and courts are waking to this failure, those who’ve failed to adapt are feeling exposed. They don’t like it, and they want protection.  They call it ‘proportionality.’

Proportionality sounds wholesome and virtuous, like ‘patriotism’ or ‘faith;’ but like those wholesome virtues, it’s sometimes the refuge of scoundrels.”

But, without proportionality, how will organizations protect themselves against the “increased” threat of sanctions for spoliation?  Craig addresses that by debunking the myth:

“The much-ballyhooed ‘rise in sanctions’ is designed to mislead.   The solid metrics we have on spoliation sanctions prove that the risk of being sanctioned for negligent non-preservation remains miniscule (.00675% per a report from the Federal Judicial Center).  Put simply: In the United States, you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be sanctioned for non-preservation of ESI.”

Noting that “the overwhelming majority of e-discovery sanctions decisions turn on venal acts like intentional destruction of evidence and contemptuous disregard of discovery obligations”, Craig decides to “tell it like it is: The claim that diligent, responsible litigants are being sanctioned for innocent e-discovery errors is hogwash.”

Craig then addresses how many organizations address their preservation obligations to avoid sanctions “by embracing monumental inefficiency in preservation instead of making sensible, defensible choices” and blaming the plaintiff for requesting the data (spoiler alert, it’s not the plaintiff’s fault).  “To the extent ‘proportionality’ is a byword for ‘let us err with impunity,’ it’s too soon in the evolution of e-discovery to be so resigned to incompetence.  If anything, we need more sanctions for incompetence, not more safe harbors”, Craig states.

Craig’s post continues to discuss the level of competence of lawyers preserving data, the efforts to use the proportionality argument and the court’s role in deciding (“proportionality shouldn’t be pressed into service as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for botched preservation; but, it can prove instructive to courts weighing sanctions for failure to preserve relevant evidence”, he states).  In the end, it’s up to courts to “insist parties know how to use the scale and don’t put their thumbs on the pan” (of the scales of justice, that is).

By the way, this isn’t a recent sentiment of Craig’s spawned by the impending Federal rules changes this December, he notes that he wrote this post four years ago, but never posted it.  Interesting.

A link to his post is here.

So, what do you think?  Do you think we need more sanctions for incompetence and not just for willful destruction of ESI?   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.

Rules Amendments Are Not Just Being Approved WITHIN DC, But Also FOR DC As Well: eDiscovery Trends

We’ve been covering the progress of adoption of changes to the Federal Rules and the associated debate regarding the rules – especially Rule 37(e) – for over two years (with posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  Unless Congress introduces legislation to affect the timing or content of the rules, the rules will become effective on December 1 of this year.  But, did you know that there are new rules amendments for the District of Columbia, as well?

According to DCBar.org, on August 5, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued Rule Promulgation Order 15-02 amending Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 26, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 45.

The amendments, which take effect October 12, 2015, establish processes and procedures for electronic discovery, including the manner for requesting and producing electronically stored information, and for requesting and submitting certain discovery requests in an electronic format.  They also incorporate some stylistic changes based on guidelines established by the Style Subcommittee of the federal Standing Committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Including the one-page rule promulgation order, the amended rules (extensively edited with amendments to the rules in red and strikethrough of rule text that has been removed) is contained within this 38 page PDF file.  Happy reading!

So, what do you think?  Do you practice law in DC?  If so, are you happy about the rules changes?  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.

Want a Definition of “Possession, Custody, or Control” of ESI? Look to The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

Hard to believe that we’re just now getting around to covering it, but The Sedona Conference® released a new commentary back in April. This guide strives to provide guidance to defining the phrase “possession, custody, or control” as it’s used in Federal Rules 34 and 45.

Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the discovery of “documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things” in the responding party’s “possession, custody, or control.” Similarly, Rule 34(a) and Rule 45(a) obligate a party responding to a document request or subpoena to produce “documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things” in that party’s possession, custody, or control. However, nowhere does the Rules provide any definition of the phrase “possession, custody, or control”, requiring parties to look to case law for a definition. Unfortunately, the case law has proved to be unclear and inconsistent in providing such a definition. In addition, determining whether ESI should be considered to be in a responding party’s “possession, custody, or control” has become more complex, with the growing popularity of technologies and trends such as social media and cloud computing.

The public comment version of The Sedona Conference Commentary on Rule 34 and Rule 45 Possession, Custody, or Control was released in April to provide practical, uniform and defensible guidelines regarding when a responding party should be deemed to have “possession, custody, or control” of documents and all forms of electronically stored information (ESI) subject to Rule 34 and Rule 45 requests for production. A secondary purpose of the Commentary is to advocate abolishing use of the common-law “practical ability test” for purposes of determining Rule 34 and Rule 45 “control” of ESI, which has led to “inequitable” situations in which courts have held that a party has Rule 34 “control” of Documents and ESI even though the party did not have the actual ability to obtain the Documents and ESI.

The guide begins with a one-page Abstract that briefly describes the issue and the goal of the commentary, followed by a one-page list of the actual principles. They are:

  • Principle 1: A responding party will be deemed to be in Rule 34 or Rule 45 “possession, custody, or control” of Documents and ESI when that party has actual possession or the legal right to obtain and produce the Documents and ESI on demand.
  • Principle 2: The party opposing the preservation or production of specifically requested Documents and ESI claimed to be outside its control, generally bears the burden of proving that it does not have actual possession or the legal right to obtain the requested Documents and ESI.
  • Principle 3(a): When a challenge is raised about whether a responding party has Rule 34 or Rule 45 “possession, custody, or control” over Documents and ESI, the Court should apply modified “business judgment rule” factors that, if met, would allow certain, rebuttable presumptions in favor of the responding party.
  • Principle 3(b): In order to overcome the presumptions of the modified business judgment rule, the requesting party bears the burden to show that the responding party’s decisions concerning the location, format, media, hosting and access to Documents and ESI lacked a good faith basis and were not reasonably related to the responding party’s legitimate business interests.
  • Principle 4: Rule 34 and Rule 45 notions of “possession, custody, or control” should never be construed to trump conflicting state or federal privacy or other statutory obligations.
  • Principle 5: If a party responding to a specifically tailored request for Documents or ESI (either prior to or during litigation), does not have actual possession or the legal right to obtain the Documents or ESI that are specifically requested by their adversary because they are in the “possession, custody, or control” of a third party, it should, in a reasonably timely manner, so notify the requesting party to enable the requesting party to obtain the Documents or ESI from the third party. If the responding party so notifies the requesting party, absent extraordinary circumstances, the responding party should not be sanctioned or otherwise held liable for the third party’s failure to preserve the Documents or ESI.

The remainder of the guide covers 1) the background that led to the new principles, including inconsistent interpretations of “possession, custody, or control” within the Rules, shortcomings of the “practical ability test” and effect of new technologies on the analysis and 2) a detailed look at each of the new principles. There is also an Appendix with a lengthy spreadsheet of cases where “possession, custody, or control” was at issue.

As usual, the Commentary is free and can be downloaded here. As this is the public comment version, you can submit comments to info@sedonaconference.org, or fax(!) them to 602-258-2499.

So, what do you think? Will these new principles lead to a consistent application of “possession, custody, or control” within the courts? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think? Do you expect the proposed changes to have a positive effect of how discovery is handled? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Craig Ball of Craig D. Ball, P.C.: eDiscovery Trends

This is the eighth (and final) of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them most of the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Craig Ball. 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 over 1,500 presentations and papers. Craig’s articles on forensic technology and electronic discovery frequently appear in the national media, and he currentlyblogs on those topics at ballinyourcourt.com.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

My impression is that the crowd is down. I’m not sure whether that was the challenging travel conditions (many people, daunted by winter storms and flight diversions, may have headed home), but looking at today’s keynote address, it wasn’t a full house. Still, it was a quality house. Fewer browsers isn’t bad for the exhibitors when the quality of leads improve. The folks that come to grab tchotchkes aren’t necessarily the folk vendors want to engage.

This is the first time in quite some time that I was able to peruse 100% of the exhibitors’ booths. That ALM wasn’t using the top floor this year suggests that, the number of exhibitors must be down, too. I’d attribute that to marketplace consolidation and to the ranks of vendors who’ve decamped to other venues, believing they can glean the benefits of being at LegalTech without exhibiting. I find myself in meetings at the Warwick Hotel as often as at the Hilton.

LegalTech has grown more important through the disappearance of other venues of this scale and breadth.  LTNY dominates as the one place where you see everybody and everything in the marketplace. But, that’s a cyclic phenomenon and competition will return. ILTA has grown in scale and import, and it serves as an influential alternative venue for kicking tires. It’s probably as important to be at ILTA as it is to be here in New York. The West Coast LegalTech has lost steam, but should be energized by its move to the Bay Area. The biggest challenger to these big tent events is improved communication tools. Screen sharing has made it as easy to be at your desk and see a high quality demo as fight the crowd.

There was also a different vibe, a “changing of the guard” feel. Underscoring the late Browning Marean’s absence, the temporary shuttering of the Hilton lobby bar was metaphorical, as was Monica Bay’s retirement. It signals the handing over of the reins to a new generation of disruptive competitors, and of established players seeking to reinvent and present themselves in fresh ways. That’s exciting. I’ve attended LegalTech since the latest technology was fire (we called it “Environmental Governance”), and I’m seeing many new faces, people I don’t recognize when I scan the cocktail lounge. That’s renewal: positive, but bittersweet.

As for the educational sessions, I’m biased as a member of the educational advisory board that plans the curriculum; but, the sessions I attended were first rate. The presenters did their homework; panelists weren’t “winging it.” The content was substantive and engaging. Has electronic discovery eaten the show? Sure, but many other offerings are here. They just don’t sponsor as many educational tracks, buy the big booths or host the prominent events. I know that some lament the extent to which electronic discovery has taken over; but, that’s a function of demand. Content follows the money.

Having said that, I feel that there’s a sense of ennui that pervades the industry. Many are tired of eDiscovery, manifested as efforts to shift the conversation to other things. When I plan eDiscovery programs, there’s a push to bring in privacy and cybersecurity or blow the topic up into information governance. All of those are valuable; but, they aren’t the core curriculum of eDiscovery, and we haven’t yet mastered the fundamentals of electronic discovery. Those hot topics serve to displace education still needed and topics more central to electronic discovery. We are still laying the foundation.

Trend-wise,we’re always a bit late to the party in eDiscovery. We aren’t doing enough to acknowledge that, like Elvis, much of the information we must address in discovery has left the building. It’s gone mobile, and we lack the scalable processes and tools to effectively and efficiently preserve and process mobile data. I’m hoping that the things I’m saying to vendors (and that I hope others are saying as well) will get them to look toward the hill, or even over it. Mobile and cloud are not “coming.” They’re here in a big way, and they’re not going away or becoming less important.

Finally, if it were my call, I’d swap the dates for the east and west events, giving three years notice. But, a wintry convention probably costs much less, so fuggedaboudit.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I am comfortable with the end result and think there is a virtual certainty that the amendments will sail through Congress with no more than a tweak or two, becoming our rules in December. With respect to their impact on preservation (which was the principal impetus behind the efforts to change the rules), it will make absolutely no difference. I’ve been asking people what they will not retain or do once the amendments take hold that they weren’t saving or doing before, and I’ve not had a single person articulate the savings they expect to realize on the strength of Rule 37(e). That said, I think 37(e) significantly immunizes negligent spoliation from significant sanctions. If there was going to be a 37(e)–and the millions spent by businesses lobbying for same sealed that deal–then Judge Grimm and others crafted the best 37(e) we could hope for.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

I don’t think enough are struggling with it. I think many have simply chosen to move on, whether they get it or not. They’re tired of eDiscovery, and they’re changing the conversation. That was my point earlier about, “Oh, you want to have an eDiscovery conference? Talk about cybersecurity or privacy instead.” They hate having to deal with the nitty-gritty of eDiscovery competency, like preservation and forms for production. Most still view “legal hold” as a document instead of a process. On the other hand, much of eDiscovery has been enshrined as a repeatable process. It may be a lousy process, but look how well it replicates! That’s a bit cynical. I do see incremental improvement and I see it in a variety of areas.

Those managing discovery in their organizations have gotten savvier and more refined in their thinking. Many organizations are in capable hands. Others have gotten what they wanted, but not what they need. By that I mean they acquired buzzwords, a few rules of thumb and a checklists to trot out without much understanding of what they are doing.

As much as I criticize lawyers for their intransigence in seeking out information about electronic discovery and refusing to master the barest fundamentals of information technology, as a profession, we have done a poor job of making materials available that are engaging and accessible. Even those lawyers willing to put effort into learning don’t know where to go for “eDiscovery 101, let alone 201 and 301.” Where are the primers and training tools? Other education supplies a pattern, a path for learning that we know how to follow. But, for electronic discovery, we’ve never had that path set before us. We’re starting to build curriculums in electronic discovery in a variety of law schools and more law schools are offering electronic discovery courses. Some of which are quite impressive and some of which are rather ministerial and give short shrift to the all-important “e” that makes eDiscovery different.

But, I’m encouraged that the coming year and the year after are going to be threshold intervals for leaps forward that we can take some pride in with regard to generating educational resources. Things are happening. Judge John Facciola’s retirement also fuels that “end of an era”, “handing over the reins” sense I mentioned; but it frees Judge Facciola’s up to concentrate more on teaching and leadership. I’m encouraged by that, and I look forward to working with him and following him in a variety of endeavors.

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

The coming year, I hope to focus on pulling together a group of educators to develop a core curriculum for electronic discovery – at the law school level, a curriculum that can be taught by those whose strength is the law and one that can be taught by those whose strength extend into the technology. I see a need to rethink professional development. We keep repeating in CLE much of the same stuff over and over again. We need to educate lawyers and litigation support, paralegals, legal assistants, IT – the people “in the trenches” – opening a path to meaningful skills and accreditation (not just a certificate and some letters to stick after one’s name). We need to offer the means to acquire genuine expertise and competence. So, I will concentrate on working with others to develop materials that can be freely circulated to law students and used by law professors, such as distilled case law, discussion questions, workbooks, tools, hands-on exercises and all the rest that serve to help schools offer practical skills courses and new lawyers gain talents that make them more valuable to firms and clients.

As I look around, I’m impressed at how much difference an individual can make in this young field. People like Richard Braman, Browning Marean, George Socha, Bill Hamilton, Tom Allman, Ariana Tadler, the rock star eDiscovery judges and others inspire me to keep on the oars and beat on, boats against the current, and unlike Gatsby, bearing ceaselessly toward tomorrow.

Thanks, Craig, for participating in the interview!

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

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

Ralph Losey of Jackson Lewis, LLP: eDiscovery Trends

This is the seventh of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Ralph Losey. Ralph is an attorney in private practice with the law firm of Jackson Lewis, LLP, where he is a Shareholder and the firm’s National e-Discovery Counsel. Ralph is also a prolific author of eDiscovery books and articles, the principal author and publisher of the popular e-Discovery Team® Blog, founder and owner of an online training program, e-Discovery Team Training, with attorney and technical students all over the world, founder of the new Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP) lawyer-centric work flow model. Ralph is also the publisher of LegalSearchScience.com and PreSuit.com on predictive coding methods and applications.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

It seems to me that attendance is up. I got here a little late, but I was only delayed two hours – I know that some were delayed as much as two days. Despite that, I think it was a good turnout. When I was walking the floor, there seemed to be crowds of people, so I think it was pretty well attended this year.

The programming this year had a slightly different orientation. I had a presentation on predictive coding (which I’ve presented on predictive coding topics for the last four years or so) and, in past years, it seemed that my presentation would be one of a dozen or more at the show whereas this year, it seemed like there were only three or four presentations on predictive coding. So, maybe the “fad” part of predictive coding is over and more people are into the topic in depth. The presentation that we gave was more on an advanced level – we didn’t discuss whether or not you should use it or review the basics; instead, we went into a deeper level. And that was fun for me to do.

Instead, I think the hot item this year was information governance, which is somewhat of a general “catch-all”. Then, the other two things that I saw in the presentations and in the “buzz” on the floor when talking to people were two things that I’m very concerned about as well: security (cybersecurity is the word I prefer to use) and privacy. I think those are two long-term issues that have been brewing and are now coming to the forefront where lawyers are realizing that these are important issues that are coming out of technology.

As for whether they should consider moving the show, well, I’m from Florida and I love to see snow every now and then – it’s a real rarity where I live. I left a 72 degree paradise to arrive here and it was 18 degrees. In spite of that, I think the show should remain in New York at this time of year and I fully believe that this is the event of the year. If anything, I think it’s growing in importance. For me, the older I get, the more I try to limit my travel and appearances and this would be one that I would not take off my list of must attend events, if for no other reason than because everyone is here. I love walking around and running into judges and old friends, so that is one of the reasons that I think it is the premier event of the year.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I don’t think there will be any issues passing the rules amendments through Congress, I think they will sail through and be part of our rules soon enough. I don’t really feel that the rules changes will make that much difference. I just recently litigated the existing Rule 37(e) and in my memos, I quoted the new Rule 37(e). At the end of the day, it didn’t really make any difference in the court’s adjudication whether it was the old rule or the new rule. So, I still continue to think that the changes are a positive move, but I don’t think they will be a savior or “cure-all” that people might hope. In that sense, I may be a little pessimistic about it. I’ve seen rules changes before, such as ’06.

This leads to a slightly different topic, but I ultimately feel that all these (as I call them) cosmetic rules changes will fail. I think that, in maybe ten years, there is going to be a major overhaul. I think the rules committee and the federal judges will realize that you can’t just do these periodic slight “tweak” of the rules. I think they will eventually consider and, possibly enact, a complete overhaul or our rules and procedures – focused on discovery. I don’t think discovery is working and I don’t think the discovery rules are really working and I don’t think that they can be patched up. They’ve been trying to patch up discovery for 35 years now with various rules changes and they’ve never worked. I have no reason to believe that 2015 will be any different than 1989 or before that. I think that they’re going to be forced to take drastic measures. That’s my prediction – we’ll see.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

In my world (which is a fairly large world, but it’s all in employment law), I see employment law cases all over the country of an asymmetric type: small plaintiff against the big corporation. The change that I see is mainly on the corporation defendant level – they are getting their acts together much better on the preservation front. In fact, all across the whole spectrum, the corporations are slowly but surely getting there. There is still a long way to go, but I do see improvement. I see improvement in the defense bar in general and, of course, with my own attorneys, which for five years I have put through intensive training. We have 800 lawyers and I would say that 600 of them are litigators, so, after five years, there are certain things that have penetrated and they have developed a core level of competence, particularly on preservation. Preservation is in every case, so that’s the most important thing to get down pat and I have seen definite improvement in that.

Now, on the plaintiff side, it’s still amazingly slow. The plaintiffs’ bar is slow to catch up, they are still untrained and, for the most part, unknowledgeable. And, some of the ones that are active in eDiscovery are using it as a tool to be a “pain in the ass” really. They’re not doing it for true discovery; instead, they’re doing it more as a harassment tactic. And, they don’t really know what they’re doing. So, we have to deal with that. On the other hand, we are seeing more and more sincere plaintiff’s counsel too, so it’s not all bad. Just not as many as we would like, since cooperation really is the best way to go.

But, we are also seeing situations where we’re making requests and wanting to see the Facebook pages and wanting to see the plaintiff’s email. Although it is still asymmetric, there essentially isn’t a plaintiff in the world that doesn’t have an email account. We still need discovery from them. The impact is what I call the “boomerang effect” – be careful what you throw out there, it can come back right at you. When the tables are turned and we ask the plaintiff’s counsel “what are you doing about preservation”, we get big blank stares. In a way, the fact that the plaintiffs have their own ESI has leveled the playing field a bit.

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

I’d like the readers to check out what I’m working on to create a best practices and standards for the legal practice of electronic discovery, and I call that Electronic Discovery Best Practices (EDBP). It’s not EDRM, it’s about what lawyers do. That’s what I’ve been doing for the past eight years, helping lawyers do electronic discovery. That continues to evolve.

The thing that’s new that I’ve been working on is cybersecurity. So, one of my websites is eDiscoverySecurity.com where I talk about the need for lawyers and companies when they’re doing eDiscovery to be concerned about keeping it secure. We’re often assembling very sensitive documents, which are a target for hackers, including foreign governments. The Chinese are famous for this and law firms are being hacked. The final thing that I would point out is that I’ve got HackerLaw.org, which is another new web site that I’ve created associated with my interest in cybersecurity. I consider myself a “hacker” in the positive sense of someone who is hands on, working with computers – that’s what “hacker” really means. But, there’s also the “dark hat” hackers that are my enemies and there’s a whole war going on out there. This site pertains to that and also talks about the positive side of being a hacker (for example, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were proud to call themselves “hackers”). Believe it or not, the term “hacker” started out in model railroading – the famous computer lab at MIT grew out of the model railroad club at MIT. They were hands on building railroad tracks and, out of that grew the whole computer culture – little known historical point.

As for the e-Discovery Team® Blog, the three part series that I just finished on ei-Recall was the hardest blog post series that I have ever written. I put a lot of time into it as a public service because I worried about what is the best way to confirm and verify your results when you’re doing a review. I call it “Quality Assurance” and there are so many ways to do it that I came up with this approach for recall and consulted a number of scientists during the process. I didn’t do it because I’m trying to sell anything. But, I hope it will become the de-facto standard and I wrote it, at length, so that anybody with a little study can do it on their own. People have started to tell me that they have studied the blog and are starting to do it, so that’s encouraging. The whole point of “I’ve attained 80% recall” – that’s wrong, you can never know exact recall, it has to be a range. I’ve had some scientists after the fact tell me that’s what they’ve been doing all along, they just didn’t call it “ei-Recall”. You only calculate it at the end of a project, but that’s when you need to do it. So, I think it has been one of my major accomplishments and I hope everyone will check it out.

Thanks, Ralph, for participating in the interview!

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

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

Tom O’Connor of Advanced Discovery: eDiscovery Trends

This is the fourth of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is Tom O’Connor. Tom is a nationally known consultant, speaker and writer in the area of computerized litigation support systems. A frequent lecturer on the subject of legal technology, Tom has been on the faculty of numerous national CLE providers and has taught college level courses on legal technology. Tom’s involvement with large cases led him to become familiar with dozens of various software applications for litigation support and he has both designed databases and trained legal staffs in their use on many of the cases mentioned above. This work has involved both public and private law firms of all sizes across the nation. Tom is the Director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center in New Orleans and he just joined Advanced Discovery as a Senior ESI Consultant in January.

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

Like all LegalTech shows, it’s hectic. I come to New York thinking, “hey, I’m going to go have a good dinner one night, maybe go down to Times Square” and by 8pm, I’m exhausted. You talk to people all day and at the end of the show day there’s a group of people who want to go out to parties and I’m going across the street to the 24 hour deli and getting a sandwich. It’s always busy and there’s always a ton of things going on at the show. It is great, though, that I get people that I don’t get to see on a regular basis, like Michael Arkfeld and George Socha, so this show is really priceless for me to get to talk to them. Craig (Ball) and George and I just had lunch and talked about Continuous Active Learning and those are the sorts of discussions that LTNY facilitates.

Last night, when I was grabbing my sandwich at the end of the day, Henry Dicker (Executive Director of LegalTech) came walking in and we had a great talk about LegalTech and their worldwide schedule. Henry and I have been doing these shows for about the same amount of time. So, it was interesting getting his perspective in a quiet moment about how the show is going and the attendance and so forth. ALM has apparently been having great success with their overseas shows. I think Henry said that, at the end of the year, he was in Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and mainland China – all within five weeks. So, they have been having great success internationally.

As for the show itself, if you’re looking for new product information and what the latest and greatest is across a wide swath of product types (i.e., every type of legal software imaginable), LTNY, because it is in late January/early February has always been the “granddaddy of them all”. Vendors like to get new releases out for the show, make announcements, etc. ILTA is probably the better show for highly technical information and IT types because it’s where they start opening the hood and popping the carburetor off and boring out the engine. That being said, Henry has a great relationship with ILTA and they have an ILTA track here. But, for what LTNY does, which is cut across all products, it’s unbeatable.

The one issue I have with LTNY (which is not really a negative because the slack is picked up by the ABA Tech Show) is the over-emphasis on BIG firm solutions. BIG firms, BIG corporations, BIG data – everything’s BIG. But, the ABA Tech Show does a good job in picking up and emphasizing small to mid-sized firms and solutions for them.

As for trends for this year, every year there’s a buzzword or two that interests people. The one that I think is particularly discussed a lot this year (again, by big firms) is cybersecurity. After last year, with the big security breaches at Sony and Home Depot, I think that’s in the forefront of people’s discussions right now. I think that’s a very hot topic. Information Governance continues to be a hot topic as well – Patrick Burke had a great program on Monday at the Cardozo Law School – so, I think that continues to be (if you’ll pardon the pun) a huge interest for attendees here. The third area of interest that I’m hearing a lot about is analytics – how to use computer tools of all sorts before you get to review and, in some cases, before you even get to the processing stage and pare down that huge amount of data. Using those tools to try to reduce that volume and get a handle on what’s relevant. A few years ago, the hot topic was early case assessment. It’s a continuation of that trend, but with much more sophisticated tools and ability to do it.

As for moving LTNY to a different time of year, yes, I’ve been advocating for years that they consider flipping LegalTech West and LegalTech East. Have LegalTech West at this time of year and go to San Francisco (where the show will be held this year) or Los Angeles (where the show has been held in past years) during the wintertime and New York in the late spring or early summer. I understand there are long term contracts and it would take a while, but it sure would help things with the weather and travel issues. Once you delay a flight for bad weather by half an hour or 45 minutes, everything goes “to hell in a hand basket” quickly. So, yes, I would love to see it moved.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I don’t think the changes were necessarily for the better. The revised Rule 37(e) still benefits corporate defendants, lowering their burden and making it easier for them to not preserve data. Again, I think that only affects a small percentage of litigants. To paraphrase Judge (Shira) Scheindlin, she essentially said that she just doesn’t think it will have an “in the trenches” sort of an impact. It may in one or two cases, but she didn’t see it as being all that big a deal with the amount of cases that they see, at least in her court. Certainly where I live, in New Orleans and throughout the southeast, the people who I work with in more rural or semi-rural jurisdictions with smaller cases and smaller case loads, there is no impact.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

Clearly, we’ve advanced. I think there is better understanding by some attorneys, especially corporate counsel, which I think have a much firmer grasp of what’s going on in eDiscovery. Four or five years ago, Michael Arkfeld said probably only 2% of attorneys really got eDiscovery and understood all of the rules. We’ve improved, but, unfortunately, I think we’ve only gone to about 10%. I think there’s still a lot of work to be done. Law schools are still dragging their feet on what they see as some sort of technical training. It’s not in their “wheelhouse”, not in their charter. I think that’s changing and I think you’re going to see a lot more aggressive legal education around these issues in law schools in the next year or so.

I think that you’re seeing the judiciary be very aggressive in demanding competence and, with some of the local rules changes and ethics opinions (such as the recent one in California), requiring some sort of affidavit or certification that you have enough knowledge to make a pleading in this field. I think we will continue to see more of that. It’s great when we see Judge Scheindlin say that or Judge (John) Facciola or Judge (Andrew) Peck or other big names in the field, but I see judges in the federal district courts in places like New Orleans, Mobile and Mississippi also be much more demanding of competence. So, I don’t think it’s isolated to the northeast or the big name judges, it’s something that the judiciary as a whole is pushing. That has probably been the biggest change.

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

I have a new position – doing what I’ve always been doing, but now for a national company – heading up the consulting services for Advanced Discovery. I’m working with clients on cases, trying to help them find the right tools to answer these problems that we’re talking about in this interview. And, as always, I’m performing a lot of pro bono work for the Louisiana and Mississippi state bars because we have a very high concentration of solo and small firm attorneys “in our neck of the woods”. They are struggling with all sorts of education issues, especially around eDiscovery and technology updates. That’s a major undertaking, from Houston to Pensacola, in states that are poorer and mostly rural. You think about New Orleans or Mobile, but when you get above that I-10 line, you get to an area that’s underserved by the legal community in general and by technology. Courts, attorneys and clients are all struggling with these issues down there.

Thanks, Tom, for participating in the interview!

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

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