Close
Enter your
text here

Information Governance

Just How “BIG” is Big Data Getting? Check Out These Facts – eDiscovery Trends
 

If you work with information as an attorney, paralegal, litigation support professional or information technology (IT) professional, you have probably heard the term “big data” at an ever increasing rate.  But, just how BIG is big data getting?  Check out these facts.

An article by Bernard Marr on SmartData Collective (Big Data: 25 Amazing Need-to-Know Facts) provides some startling facts that you might be surprised to know.  Here are a few examples (with sources linked):

  • Every 2 days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of time until 2003;
  • Over 90% of all the data in the world was created in the past 2 years;
  • It is expected that by 2020 the amount of digital information in existence will have grown from 3.2 zettabytes today to 40 zettabytes (FYI, a zettabyte is one billion terabytes!);
  • The total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years;
  • If you burned all of the data created in just one day onto DVDs, you could stack them on top of each other and reach the moon – twice;
  • 570 new websites spring into existence every minute of every day;
  • 1.9 million IT jobs will be created in the US by 2015 to carry out big data projects. Each of those will be supported by 3 new jobs created outside of IT – meaning a total of 6 million new jobs thanks to big data;
  • The big data industry is expected to grow from US$10.2 billion in 2013 to about US$54.3 billion by 2017.

With this level of data growth in the world, it’s no wonder that information governance and eDiscovery continues to be more challenging!

Check out Bernard’s article here for the entire list of 25 facts (it even includes a slide deck!).  And, thanks to Rob Robinson’s excellent ComplexDiscovery site for the heads up!

Tomorrow, we will take a look at what big companies think about (and what they’re doing about) big data.  Speaking of something BIG, check this out.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a plan for managing big data?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Those Pesky Email Signatures and Disclaimers – eDiscovery Best Practices
 

Are email signatures and disclaimers causing more trouble than they’re worth?  According to one author, perhaps they are.

Earlier this week, Jeff Bennion wrote an interesting post on the Above the Law blog (‘Please Consider the Environment Before Printing’ Email Signatures Are Hurting the Environment) where he noted that, about 5 years ago, people started putting ‘Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail’ in their email signature (along with a webdings font character of a tree).

Bennion states that this is “the Kony 2012 of the environmental battles – it’s a noble war, but a pointless battle” and that the printing of emails is only a tiny fraction of the paper that lawyers waste.  Instead, he notes, “the ‘please consider the environment’ email signature is more like one of those ‘I voted’ stickers — both serve no purpose other than proclaiming your self-righteousness for performing a civic duty”.

In fact, per a Time magazine article, the internet accounts for a good deal of the pollution in the world. In a 2011 article, cleantechnica.com reported that there were about 500,000 data centers in the world and each used 10 megawatts of energy a month.  That’s a lot more than 1.21 gigawatts.  Great Scott!

When comparing Word files containing data that might go into an email with the same data that also includes the email signature, Bennion observes that the one with the email signature contains .3 KB more of data than the one without the signature.  He extrapolates that out to 27,000 GB of extra useless data being added to internet storage servers every day (10 million GB per year) over all business emails, while acknowledging that not all 90 billion business emails are including the signature.  “The point is that it is a pointless gesture that, as a whole, does more harm than good”, Bennion states.

And, the same holds true for those confidential and privileged email disclaimers at the bottom of emails, which he observes “take up about 10-20 times more wasted space than the ‘please stop printing your emails’ disclaimer” – “roughly the environmental equivalent of clubbing 3 baby seals a month”.  Some interesting takes.

These email signatures and disclaimers also affect eDiscovery costs, both in terms of extra data to process and also host.  They can also lead to false hits when searching text and affect conceptual clustering or predictive coding of documents (which are based on text content of the documents) unless steps are taken to remove those from indices and ignore the text when performing those processes.  All of which can lead to extra work and extra cost.

So, what do you think?  Do you use “please stop printing your emails” signatures and confidential and privileged email disclaimers?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

How Mature is Your Organization in Handling eDiscovery? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question.

A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity” (according to their press release linked here).

As stated in the press release, eMSAT-1 is a downloadable Excel workbook containing 25 worksheets (actually 27 worksheets when you count the Summary sheet and the List sheet of valid choices at the end) organized into seven sections covering various aspects of the e-discovery process. Complete the worksheets and the assessment results are displayed in summary form at the beginning of the spreadsheet.  eMSAT-1 is the first of several resources and tools being developed by the EDRM Metrics group, led by Clark and Dera Nevin, with assistance from a diverse collection of industry professionals, as part of an ambitious Maturity Model project.

The seven sections covered by the workbook are:

  1. General Information Governance: Contains ten questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of information governance.
  2. Data Identification, Preservation & Collection: Contains five questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of these “left side” phases.
  3. Data Processing & Hosting: Contains three questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of processing, early data assessment and hosting.
  4. Data Review & Analysis: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of search and review.
  5. Data Production: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of production and protecting privileged information.
  6. Personnel & Support: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s hiring, training and procurement processes.
  7. Project Conclusion: Contains one question to answer regarding your organization’s processes for managing data once a matter has concluded.

Each question is a separate sheet, with five answers ranked from 1 to 5 to reflect your organization’s maturity in that area (with descriptions to associate with each level of maturity).  Default value of 1 for each question.  The five answers are:

  • 1: No Process, Reactive
  • 2: Fragmented Process
  • 3: Standardized Process, Not Enforced
  • 4: Standardized Process, Enforced
  • 5: Actively Managed Process, Proactive

Once you answer all the questions, the Summary sheet shows your overall average, as well as your average for each section.  It’s an easy workbook to use with input areas defined by cells in yellow.  The whole workbook is editable, so perhaps the next edition could lock down the calculated only cells.  Nonetheless, the workbook is intuitive and provides a nice exercise for an organization to grade their level of eDiscovery maturity.

You can download a copy of the eMSAT-1 Excel workbook from here, as well as get more information on how to use it (the page also describes how to provide feedback to make the next iterations even better).

The EDRM Maturity Model Self-Assessment Test is the fourth release in recent months by the EDRM Metrics team. In June 2013, the new Metrics Model was released, in November 2013 a supporting glossary of terms for the Metrics Model was published and in November 2013 the EDRM Budget Calculators project kicked off (with four calculators covered by us here, here, here and here).  They’ve been busy.

So, what do you think?  How mature is your organization in handling eDiscovery?  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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis.  Now, after doing so each business day (except for one), I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily!

We’ve covered the gamut in eDiscovery, from case law to industry trends to best practices.  Here are some of the categories that we’ve covered and the number of posts (to date) for each:

We’ve also covered every phase of the EDRM (177) life cycle, including:

Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Comparing our first three months of existence to now, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 474%!  Our subscriber base has more than tripled in the last three years!  We want to take this time to thank you, our readers and subcribers, for making that happen.  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan University, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some serial topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to what litigation support and discovery used to be like back in the 80’s (to which some of us “old timers” can relate).  Her contributions are always well received and appreciated by the readers – and also especially by me, since I get a day off!

We always end each post with a request: “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.”  And, we mean it.  We want to cover the topics you want to hear about, so please let us know.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with a new, original post.  In the meantime, feel free to click on any of the links above and peruse some of our 999 previous posts.  Now is your chance to catch up!  😉

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Thursday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted Monday, Tuesday and yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  This is the last day to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions still available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 3 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

LEDES – The Proliferation of Jurisdictional e-Billing Requirements and UTBMS Code Sets

Description: The ABA originally released four UTBMS (Uniform Task Based Management System) code sets in 1998. The original code sets were tailored to categorize services performed by counsel on litigation and bankruptcy matters, or to accommodate project and counseling work. The past few years have been marked by a dramatic increase in the number of UTBMS code sets available, with the development of additional (or revision of existing) code sets for jurisdictional billing (Canada, England and Wales) and for Governance, Risk and Compliance, Knowledge Management, Patent, Trademark, transactional and eDiscovery work. What’s going on with all this new development? How do jurisdictional laws and requirements impact the complexity of implementing UTBMS in law firms? What steps is the LOC considering to alleviate this burden? During this session we will take a look at the various jurisdictions worldwide requiring eBilling and how jurisdictional billing codes are proliferating as a result. Audience participation is encouraged!

Speakers are: Jane A. Bennitt – Global Legal Ebilling, LLC; Cathi J. Collins – Bridgeway Software.

Large Firm Hustle: An Oscar-Worthy Discussion Forum

Description: Large firms have unique pain points (and unique successes) worthy of a closer look. Join our thought-provoking discussion as we focus on issues — such as IT department relocation, DMS security and collaboration, information governance, email headaches and client-driven changes in legal IT — that profoundly affect larger legal organizations.

Speakers are: John Kuttler – Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Constance Hoffman – Bryan Cave, LLP.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

E-Discovery Review Platform Selection – One Year Later

Description: Attend this follow up to last year’s popular panel discussion which focused on the search for and selection of e-discovery solutions. We have reconvened a panel to discuss the solutions they selected and will now share lessons learned from the complicated steps of implementation, rollout and adoption. The panel will also offer guidance and advice for all those contemplating or in the middle of the selection and deployment of an e-discovery solution.

Speakers are: Stephen Dooley – Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Deanna E. Blomquist – Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; David Hasman – Bricker & Eckler LLP.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Wednesday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted Monday and yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 4 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

Aligning the Tenets of Information Governance with Your Firm’s IG Strategy

Description: Learn to develop an information governance strategy that incorporates the four dimensions of information risk management (records management, privacy, cybersecurity and e-discovery.) Our panel will share examples of how they integrated setting controls, reduced costs and improved compliance at their firms.

Speakers are: James Fortmuller – Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; Ann Ostrander – Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Brynmor Bowen – Greenheart Consulting Partners LLC; Terry Coan – HBR Consulting LLC.

What Happens on Facebook Doesn’t Stay on Facebook: Social Media Discovery Tools

Description: Social media are a rich, enormous source of information. We’ll take a look at both the legalities of using social media e-discovery and pros and cons of different tools, such as products for Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, Website Archival and web-based email.

Speakers are: Julie K. Brown – Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP; Doug Matthews – Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP; Andrew Keck – ProFile Discovery.

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM:

A Checklist for Getting the Most Out of Your E-Discovery Vendor Relationship

Description: Today’s legal environment has made it nearly impossible to have litigation without some amount of e-discovery involving an outside vendor. E-discovery can be fully outsourced, done entirely in-house or involve a combination of both. Whatever your organization’s e-discovery needs, it’s important to know how to navigate the vendor relationship. Leave with a checklist of issues to consider and important questions to ask when evaluating e-discovery vendor services.

Speakers are: Kristen Atteberry – Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Brett Tarr – Caesars Entertainment Legal Department; Babs Deacon – The EDJ Group Inc.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better … Predictive Coding vs. Human Review

Description: As Ethel Merman and Ray Middleton melodically contested in “Annie Get Your Gun”, “Anything you can do, I can do better; I can do anything better than you”. The disagreement continues when comparing predictive coding to human review. Come hear results of the Electronic Discovery Institute’s predictive coding study and get a non-biased, scientific view into the world of predictive coding. How did e-discovery service providers compare to each other? Do quality results and high cost go together? How did human review results compare to predictive coding? Do humans still rule?

Speaker is: Patrick L. Oot – Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Tuesday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 3 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

ARMA: Information Governance: A Revenue Source Potential

Description: Law firms are under increased financial pressure due to a highly competitive market and clients demanding fixed-fee contracts. Information governance (IG) offers firms the opportunity to not only create a new practice but also to tap into a new source of revenue by leveraging existing relationships and experience. Attendees will learn about the impact of IG, opportunities for information governance at law firms and how law firms can help their clients with IG.

Speaker is: Martin Tuip – ARMA International

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM:

Ungoverned Information Equals Litigation Disaster: What Your Firm Should Do

Description: What’s the difference between well-controlled risk and unmitigated disaster? Information governance (IG) of course! Because client data often enters your firm through the litigation support process, effective risk management relies on successful collaboration between IG, litigation support and IT. Our experienced panel will share guidance on how to build successful, practical IG processes around e-discovery. We’ll focus on real-world consequences of IG failure in this realm and tactics firms are using to mitigate associated risks.

Speakers are: Caroline Sweeney – Dorsey & Whitney; Teresa Britton – Exelon Corporation Business Services Company; Brian Jenson – Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

Tell It to the Judge – An Audience with Respected Jurist Judge Andrew Peck on Various E-Discovery Topics

Description: Judge Peck will look into his crystal ball to dicuss five prevalent e-discovery topics and answer additional questions from the audience. Come hear the views of an esteemed judge regarding these topics.

Speakers are: Thomas Morrissey – Purdue Pharma L.P.; Andrew J Peck – US District Court Southern District of New York.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.  There’s even yoga!

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Here’s a Chance to Help Shape the Future of Information Governance – eDiscovery Trends

Back on Valentine’s Day, we discussed the launching of the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), a cross-disciplinary consortium and think tank focused on advancing information governance.  The IGI has been busy, with two of its co-chairs, Bennett B. Borden & Jason R. Baron, having written a recent report on predictive analytics for information governance.  Now, the IGI is inviting you to help shape the future of information governance by participating in the IGI’s 2014 Annual Survey.

As noted on their blog, one of the IGI’s major projects this year is their 2014 (and first!) IGI Annual Report, “which will strive to provide much-needed clarity on IG concepts, definitions, markets, and practices”. As part of their research for the report, IGI is conducting a survey of information governance professionals.

As they note on their blog, the survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete (it took me about 10-12 minutes).  The survey asks a number of questions related to your role in information governance and how your organization handles IG, as well as questions regarding the future of information governance.  A link to the survey is available here.

According to Barclay Blair, founder & executive director of IGI, the deadline for taking the survey is June 15, with the results expected to be published on August 4.  Barclay also noted that IGI will also be reporting out on a series of benchmarking interviews that they are conducting right now with working IG practitioners.  Sounds like plenty of information to come!

With information governance clearly identified as the most widely discussed topic at this year’s LegalTech New York show (reflected by our recent thought leader interview series), the efforts of IGI will bear watching.  If you’re an information governance professional and want to make your voice heard, this survey is your chance!

So, what do you think? How does your organization handle information governance? 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests – eDiscovery Case Law

In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-cv-1419 JWS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2014), Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

This action involves two claims against the defendant revolving around workers’ compensation benefits: (1) that the defendant “fraudulently denied [plaintiffs’] workers’ compensation benefits in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),” and (2) that the defendant aided and abetted the plaintiffs’ employer or former employer with a “breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing” by denying the claims. In filing the Motion to Compel, the plaintiffs sought a wide ranging inquiry pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) that would enable them to “tailor their discovery requests to avoid potential disputes over what may be discovered” by deposing the defendant regarding their process of storing and maintaining ESI.

The plaintiffs contended that other courts have “allowed discovery of the very sort they seek” for the purpose of tailoring discovery requests, and cited several appellate decisions to reinforce the contention. While most of the decisions cited by the plaintiffs were from trial courts in other circuits, two of the district court cases cited were within the Ninth Circuit—specifically, Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Vegas Constr. Co., Inc., and Starbucks Corp. v. ADTSec. Services, Inc.

In reviewing these appellate decisions, Judge Sedwick noted that the first cited Ninth Circuit case was inapplicable, as it discussed extensively “a corporation’s duty to identify and prepare a witness for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but nothing in the opinion suggests that the case involved any request to conduct discovery into the manner and methods used by the defendant to store and maintain electronic data.” Regarding the second case, it was noted that the plaintiffs had in fact submitted a substantive request for discovery prior to the court ordered Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which only attempted to conclude whether the discovery would actually be “unduly burdensome and difficult to retrieve,” as the defendants alleged.

Therefore, Judge Sedwick stated that the cited decisions were inconclusive in determining “whether starting the discovery process with a wide ranging inquiry into the manner and method by which a party stores and manages ESI is a helpful and appropriate approach to obtaining substantive information,” and therefore starting discovery with an inquiry as requested by the plaintiffs “puts the cart before the horse and likely will increase, rather than decrease, discovery disputes.” Hence, the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was denied.

So, what do you think? Are there circumstances under which taking depositions prior to discovery would be helpful and appropriate? Should depositions be reserved for resolving discovery disputes, rather than preventing them? 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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.

300,000 Visits on eDiscovery Daily! – eDiscovery Milestones

While we haven’t served over 300 billion burgers like McDonald’s, we have provided something to digest each business day for over 43 months.  We’re proud to announce that on Friday, eDiscovery Daily reached the 300,000 visit milestone!  It took us a little over 21 months to reach 100,000 visits and just over 22 months to triple that to 300,000!  On to 500,000!

When we reach key milestones, we like to take a look back at some of the recent stories we’ve covered, so, in case you missed them, here are some recent eDiscovery items of interest from the past six weeks.

After 2,354 Public Comments, One Major Change to the Proposed Federal Rules: By the February 15 deadline for the comment period, no less than 2,354 public comments had been filed regarding the proposed Federal Rules amendments.  Much of the controversy related to Rule 37(e)(1)(B), which included a hotly debated amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction, but only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.  Since then, Rule 37(e) has been modified, not just once, but twice.

Government Attorneys Have eDiscovery Issues Too: From a confidence standpoint, 73% of respondents feel as confident or more confident in their ability to manage eDiscovery in their cases.  But, 84% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all effective in their agency’s ability to deal with the challenges of eDiscovery and 80% of respondents feel somewhat or not at all confident that if challenged their agency could demonstrate that their ESI was “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy.  These and other survey findings are available here.

Cloud Security Fears Diminish With Experience: According to a recent survey of 1,068 companies conducted by RightScale, Inc., concern about cloud security diminish as users gain more experience using cloud-based services.  Learn more about organizations’ cloud habits here.

Daughter’s Facebook Post Voids $80,000 Settlement: As reported a few weeks ago on CNN, the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.  That’s why it’s important to think before you hit send.  Even if you’re still in grade school.

New California Proposed Opinion Requires eDiscovery Competence: If a new proposed opinion in California is adopted, attorneys in that state had better be sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled, or decline representation in cases where eDiscovery is required.

Predictive Analytics: It’s Not Just for Review Anymore: One of the most frequently discussed trends in this year’s annual thought leader interviews that we conducted was the application of analytics (including predictive analytics) to Information Governance.  A recent report published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (and discussed here) addresses how analytics can be used to optimize Information Governance.

How Do You Dispose of “Digital Debris”? EDRM Has Answers:  Those answers can be found in a new white paper discussed here.

Also, hackers took Typepad, our platform for hosting the blog, down for a bit.  But, we’re back and better than ever!

Want to get to know some of your litigation support colleagues better?  Leave it to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided profiles here, here, here, here, here and here.

We’ve also had 11 posts about case law, just in the last six weeks (and 296 overall!).  Here is a link to our case law posts.

Every post we have ever published is still available, so the blog has become quite a knowledge base over the last 43+ months.  Sometime this summer, we will publish our 1,000th post!

On behalf of everyone at CloudNine Discovery who has worked on the blog and other publications that have picked up and either linked to or republished our posts, thanks to all of you!  We really appreciate the support!  Now, on to the next topic.  🙂

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 Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery 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.