Close
Enter your
text here

Privileged

eDiscovery Case Law: Are Attachments Part of the Email Or Are They Separate?

A Special Master recently investigated the legal standard concerning whether or not attachments must be produced with the emails to which they were attached in discovery proceedings, and determined that there is no certain answer to be found in case law precedent.

In Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Vic. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011), the defendants argued that SEI Investments (“SEI”) was at fault for neglecting to produce certain attachments to emails as part of discovery, and that SEI was obligated to produce these attachments and explain their absence. This request ultimately delved into issues of precedent and legal standard:

  • SEI stated that it had already produced the documents that were relevant and were not protected by privilege, and argued that it was not obligated to produce the attachments in question because they were non-responsive to discovery.
  • A Special Master was convened to consider the issue and to establish the legal standard for this type of discovery question.
  • The Special Master found a number of conflicting examples: In some cases, the obligation to produce attachments with the relevant emails was implied, but most of these instances assumed that attachments were required to be produced and focused solely on the format of production. In a number of cases, producing attachments with their emails has been the norm; however, in other cases, emails and attachments were treated as separate in terms of privilege determination.
  • The Special Master concluded that “conceptually” the two could be viewed separately, or they could be seen as a single unit for the purpose of discovery, and advised that the decision should generally be made by the parties involved in advance, during pretrial discovery talks.
  • In this case, the Special Master questioned SEI’s argument for not producing the attachments in question, and at the same time, argued against the probably unnecessary expense of forcing SEI to produce all attachments to all emails previously included in discovery.
  • Therefore, the Special Master made a series of recommendations that were adopted by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin. These included: a) Production of the non-privileged attachments to the 126 emails previously identified by the defendants, as well as a complete list of any such documents that it proves unable to produce; b) permission for the defendants to request further such attachments as deemed relevant and necessary to this case; and, c) a meeting between all parties to discuss this issue and reach an agreement on policy regarding the production or withholding of email attachments and their format.

So, what do you think? Do you believe that email attachments should generally be produced as a matter of course with the emails to which they were attached, or that they should be considered as separate documents for the purpose of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: A Site Designed to Facilitate Meet and Confer Conferences
 

The past two days, we discussed the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference and details regarding the topics to discuss during that conference.  Hopefully, you found that review informative.

Now, as noted in a recent Law Technology News article by Sean Doherty, there’s a web application to facilitate the process to prepare for and conduct the Rule 26(f) conference.

MeetandConfer.com, provided by 26F LLC, was created to help attorneys prepare for court mandated “meet and confer” meetings.  The application is designed for law firms and corporate clients to help them determine the content, scope, and extent of ESI associated with the case.  There are four modules to coordinate the process, as follows:

  • Manage Enterprise Information: Enables users to map out organizational information, allowing all parties to understand where potentially relevant ESI is located, policies and practices associated with the ESI, and who is responsible for the ESI.  This module also enables various aspects of the organization to be documented, including backup policies and disaster recovery plans.
  • Matter Scoping: Enables users to track the various matters, and, for each matter, it enables users to track custodians and generate surveys to gather information about the locations of potentially responsive ESI.
  • Meet and Confer: Allows attorneys to define essential ESI needs for both parties while projecting a budget to identify, collect and process the data.  This module also provides a mechanism for computer-aided video conferencing (which can be facilitated by an independent mediator) to actually conduct the conference.
  • System Administration: Supports the creation of clients and users and establish rights for each user group.

Sean’s article mentioned above goes into more detail into each module, reflecting his “hands on” experience in “test driving” the application.  MeetandConfer.com is offering a free one month trial to “qualified” users (i.e., attorneys and judges), with the monthly rate of $149 per user to be billed after the free trial.

So, what do you think? Would an application like this make it easier to fully prepare for “meet and confer” conferences? Would you consider using such an application?  Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Rules: ESI Topics of the "Meet and Confer"
 

Yesterday, we talked about the basics of the Rule 26(f) “meet and confer” conference, Today, let’s go into more detail about the topics that are typically covered during the “meet and confer”, and why.

The "meet and confer" conference focuses on the exchange of information regarding discovery and the creation of a comprehensive plan that will govern the sharing and privilege of ESI. Accordingly, the requirements of this meeting specify discussion of the following topics:

  • Initial Disclosures: This exchange may be specific and detailed or very basic, depending on the needs of the case and the attorney's agendas. Proposed changes to the requirements, timing, or form of these disclosures may be discussed.
  • Topics on which Discovery may be Needed: It may be easy to agree on subjects for which discovery is necessary, or it may require prolonged discussion to reach an accord. In some instances, time and expense can be saved by beginning with a single area and later expanding discovery to include other topics, if necessary. Known as "phased discovery", this can be a very effective choice, as long as it is conducted in a way that does not require duplication of effort in later phases.
  • Format of Production of ESI: Although the actual discovery process may be conducted over weeks or even months after the conference, it's important to agree now on the format of production to prevent parties from accidentally converting files into a type that will later prove to be inconvenient or result in loss of data. This is especially important if one party has a request for a particular format.
  • Privilege, Inadvertent Disclosure, and Protective Orders: Although we all strive to prevent disclosure of privileged information, it's important to discuss in advance the possible implications and a process for dealing with such an eventuality, if it should occur.
  • Potential Deviations from Discovery Rules Requirements: In some cases, opposing attorneys will agree that they can accomplish discovery in fewer depositions than specified by Federal Rules or local rules. If so, this discussion and any related proposals should be part of the "meet and confer" conference so they can be incorporated into the discovery plan.
  • Any Other Orders or Concerns about Discovery: From discovery agreements to questions or requests, almost any topic related to eDiscovery can be part of the "meet and confer" conference.

To get the most out of the "meet and confer," and to save time and expense, most attorneys will prepare an extensive agenda of the topics for discussion in advance of the meeting itself. Although there are many other topics that may be included in the conference, this list covers key requirements of the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference and the discovery plan to be created there.

So, what do you think? Did you learn something that you didn’t already know about the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference?  If so, then we accomplished our goal! Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Rules: What's Really Required for the "Meet and Confer"?
 

Almost any litigation professional who works with eDiscovery is aware of the Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference, but many don't fully understand its parameters and how it affects ESI. What exactly is the "meet and confer" and what are some of its implications in regard to eDiscovery?

What is the "Meet and Confer"?

The "meet and confer" conference is now a requirement in Federal cases as of the rules changes of 2006 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition to Rule 26(f) for Federal cases, an increasing number of states now have (or are contemplating) a similar rule.  It provides an opportunity for the parties in a lawsuit to discuss discovery and create a plan for the sharing of information during and before trial.

The goal of the "meet and confer" rules is to provide a basis for an open exchange of information and a productive dialogue about discovery-related topics. Even in the antagonistic world of litigation, it is possible to reach an accord on the details of discovery by conforming to the requirements of these rules and of the discovery process.

What are the Parameters of the "Meet and Confer"?

Rule 26(f) states that attorneys must meet and discuss "any issues about preserving discoverable information" as well as developing a "discovery plan." It also specifies that:

  • Attorneys must already be aware of the location and nature of their own clients' computer systems and discoverable documents, and must be prepared to ask questions about their opponents' ESI, electronic systems, and data preservation actions.
  • In order to be fully prepared for this conference, an attorney needs to know as much as possible about the location, volume, and logistical challenges that surround the collection of ESI, as well as the client's preferences regarding privilege, protective orders, and document review.
  • The more informed the attorneys are on each of these counts, the more capable they will be to address relevant issues, streamline the discovery process, and minimize eDiscovery costs.
  • Attorneys may exchange either in-depth or limited information about the legal holds process.
  • The result of the "meet and confer" conference is to establish a comprehensive discovery plan and lay the groundwork for the discovery aspects of the rest of the proceeding.

Tomorrow, I’ll go into more details about the specific topics to be covered at the Rule 26(f) conference.  Oh, the anticipation!

So, what do you think? Do you have any experience with Rule 26(f) conferences that went awry or cases where having a Rule 26(f) conference would have helped? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendants' Privilege Waived for "Completely Ineffective" Discovery Procedures

In a case over purported building and zoning code violations, an Illinois District Court has found the defendants responsible for inadvertently producing several privileged documents during discovery and for a failure to correct the problem in a timely manner, and has ordered the privilege to be waived.

In Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Vill. of Park Forest, Nos. 8 C 1225, 08-C-0869, 08-C-4303, 2011 WL 3489828 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2011), the plaintiff appealed to have six documents that were accidentally submitted by the defendants (as part of discovery nine months earlier) declared to be not subject to privilege. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after the following events:

  • More than two months after the production of discovery documents was completed, the plaintiffs attempted to use two of the defendants’ privileged documents at deposition and the defendants became aware of problems in their own discovery production. Defense counsel contacted the plaintiff’s counsel shortly thereafter to notify them that certain privileged documents had been produced inadvertently during discovery.
  • Four months later, defense counsel produced a privilege log that noted 159 documents that should have been protected during discovery, but which had all been inadvertently disclosed. Defense counsel had intended that plaintiffs would have access to all documents in their shared online discovery database, but that documents “marked as ‘privileged’ during its review… would be automatically withheld from the production database.”
  • The defense and plaintiffs were able to come to an agreement about the majority of the documents between themselves, but six documents remained at issue. The plaintiff filed a motion “seeking an order finding that six documents produced… are not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or, alternately, are not protected from disclosure because the privilege has been waived” by production of the documents during discovery.
  • The court examined the events of the previous nine months, since the beginning of discovery, and determined that the defendants’ steps to prevent disclosure were “completely ineffective.”
  • The defendant was found to have failed to perform a final check of its discovery documents before production, to have inadvertently produced all of its privileged documents, and to have taken an excessive amount of time after such production to discover its error due, in part, to its failure to produce a privilege log at any time before the problem was uncovered.
  • A portion of each of the six documents was found to be subject to attorney-client privilege, but despite the inadvertent nature of production, the court found the defense entirely at fault for the violation of privilege and ruled accordingly that privilege had been waived.

So, what do you think? Does this kind of inadvertent disclosure constitute a waiver of privilege? Was the ruling appropriate or should the defense have been allowed to “clawback” those privileged documents? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Third Party Vendors Named in McDermott eDiscovery Malpractice Case
 

You might remember eDiscovery Daily's blog post a few weeks ago about the filing of an eDiscovery malpractice lawsuit against McDermott Will & Emery by J-M Manufacturing Co., a former client of McDermott's.

This case has struck a chord in the eDiscovery community since its filing on June 1, drawing attention to the practices and standards that are at the heart of eDiscovery and outsourced review. Now, the First Amended Complaint has revealed the third party vendors involved in the eDiscovery malpractice suit.

Navigant Consulting, Stratify and Hudson Legal Named in First Amended Complaint

On July 28, J-M Manufacturing filed the amended complaint to its case against McDermott. The amended malpractice complaint describes the role of the third party vendors hired by McDermott, as follows:

  • According to J-M Manufacturing, McDermott hired both Navigant Consulting, Inc. and Stratify, Inc. to run documents through a filter intended to identify and separate materials that were covered by attorney-client privilege and any documents not responsive to subpoenas.
  • Prior to the second production of privileged documents to the federal government, Hudson Legal was also hired by McDermott, and was tasked with reviewing documents identified as potentially privileged and classifying them as either: a) responsive and privileged, b) responsive and not privileged, or c) nonresponsive.

Despite the efforts of these three companies, approximately 3,900 privileged documents were included in the 250,000 discovery documents that were turned over to the government and, in turn, given to relators for examination. The relators subsequently refused to return the privileged documents on the grounds that McDermott twice conducted privilege reviews before producing the documents.

J-M Manufacturing Claims McDermott Held Files Hostage

The new amendment also includes the assertion that McDermott held relevant case files “hostage” against payment of an outstanding invoice of $530,477 after it was replaced as J-M Manufacturing's attorney. A McDermott partner reportedly emailed the president of J-M Manufacturing and said, "I'm told that our firm policy is not to release all files until full payment is made. If you'd like all the files now, please send a check for the entire $530,477 and we'll get them out to you promptly."

In the amended complaint, J-M Manufacturing contends that McDermott’s contact (including the above referenced email) violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct, preventing J-M from recognizing the “true nature and extent of the negligent disclosure” until it was too late.

In its own filing, McDermott responded to the amended complaint by criticizing J-M Manufacturing for "scandalous and irresponsible allegations that could not have been the result of a reasonable pre-filing inquiry." McDermott indicated that they’re “willing and able to set the record straight”, but has “resisted the temptation to tell the full story without first giving J-M the opportunity to withdraw its complaint”.  McDermott also warned that “J-M’s interests could be seriously compromised” if McDermott is forced to fully disclose the facts.

So, what do you think? Has this case degenerated into "scandalous and irresponsible allegations", or are McDermott and its vendors at fault? Will we see more cases like this? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Is eDiscovery Malpractice More Widespread Than You Think?
 

Last month, we discussed the eDiscovery malpractice case filed against McDermott Will & Emery for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.  This case is still continuing to generate much buzz in the eDiscovery community and I’m sure it will be closely followed as it progresses.

At least one attorney from another firm has weighed in on the possibility of eDiscovery malpractice in other cases.  Dennis Kiker, a partner with LeClair Ryan noted in their blog The e-Discovery Myth that eDiscovery malpractice is probably more widespread than most people think.  Among his observations:

  • “E-Discovery is a discipline.  Far too many attorneys in firms large and small think that e-discovery is something they can do on the side, when they are not drafting motions to dismiss an antitrust class action or preparing to depose a scientist in a patent infringement matter.  Unfortunately, this is simply not true.”
  • “[E]-discovery goes far beyond the rules.  It is one thing to understand that there are different possible forms of production permitted for electronically stored information under Rule 34, and quite another to know how to effectively and defensibly identify, preserve, collect, process, review and produce ESI.”
  • “Not even IT professionals pretend to understand all of the different information systems that exist in a single company.  Do we really expect every trial attorney to have greater expertise and understanding than the professionals that work in the field every day?”
  • “A large document review is, by definition, a large project requiring significant project management skills… In short, this is a complex, high-risk task that requires specialized skills and experience.  It is not something one does once a year and gets good at.”
  • “Malpractice claims are just one of the possible consequences of practicing in a complex area without the requisite expertise.  Loss of client goodwill, damaged reputations for lawyer and firm alike, monetary sanctions – all of these are the dancing partners of those that believe that e-discovery is something that every litigator knows how to do.”

It’s an excellent post with a number of good points.  There are some attorneys who have really worked hard at developing their eDiscovery expertise and knowing when to rely on others with the expertise they don’t have.  But, as I have observed, there are many attorneys that have tried to play “part-time eDiscovery expert” with less than terrific results (at best).  In many cases, their saving grace is that the opposing attorney is equally inept when it comes to eDiscovery best practices.

So, what do you think? Is eDiscovery malpractice more widespread than we think? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Avoiding eDiscovery Nightmares: 10 Ways CEOs Can Sleep Easier
 

I found this article in the CIO Central blog on Forbes.com from Robert D. Brownstone – it’s a good summary of issues for organizations to consider so that they can avoid major eDiscovery nightmares.  The author counts down his top ten list David Letterman style (clever!) to provide a nice easy to follow summary of the issues.  Here’s a summary recap, with my ‘two cents’ on each item:

10. Less is more: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2005 in the Arthur Andersen case that a “retention” policy is actually a destruction policy.  It’s important to routinely dispose of old data that is no longer needed to have less data subject to discovery and just as important to know where that data resides.  My two cents: A data map is a great way to keep track of where the data resides.

9. Sing Kumbaya: They may speak different languages, but you need to find a way to bridge the communication gap between Legal and IT to develop an effective litigation-preparedness program.  My two cents: Require cross-training so that each department can understand the terms and concepts important to the other.  And, don’t forget the records management folks!

8. Preserve or Perish: Assign the litigation hold protocol to one key person, either a lawyer or a C-level executive to decide when a litigation hold must be issued.  Ensure an adequate process and memorialize steps taken – and not taken.  My two cents: Memorialize is underlined because an organization that has a defined process and the documentation to back it up is much more likely to be given leeway in the courts than a company that doesn’t document its decisions.

7. Build the Three-Legged Stool: A successful eDiscovery approach involves knowledgeable people, great technology, and up-to-date written protocols.  My two cents: Up-to-date written protocols are the first thing to slide when people get busy – don’t let it happen.

6. Preserve, Protect, Defend: Your techs need the knowledge to avoid altering metadata, maintain chain-of-custody information and limit access to a working copy for processing and review.  My two cents: A good review platform will assist greatly in all three areas.

5. Natives Need Not Make You Restless: Consider exchanging files to be produced in their original/”native” formats to avoid huge out-of-pocket costs of converting thousands of files to image format.  My two cents: Be sure to address how redactions will be handled as some parties prefer to image those while others prefer to agree to alter the natives to obscure that information.

4. Get M.A.D.?  Then Get Even: Apply the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) principle to agree with the other side to take off the table costly volumes of data, such as digital voicemails and back-up data created down the road.  My two cents: That’s assuming, of course, you have the same levels of data.  If one party has a lot more data than the other party, there may be no incentive for that party to agree to concessions.

3. Cooperate to Cull Aggressively and to Preserve Clawback Rights: Setting expectations regarding culling efforts and reaching a clawback agreement with opposing counsel enables each side to cull more aggressively to reduce eDiscovery costs.  My two cents: Some parties will agree on search terms up front while others will feel that gives away case strategy, so the level of cooperation may vary from case to case.

2. QA/QC: Employ Quality Assurance (QA) tests throughout review to ensure a high accuracy rate, then perform Quality Control (QC) testing before the data goes out the door, building time in the schedule for that QC testing.  Also, consider involving a search-methodology expert.  My two cents: I cannot stress that last point enough – the ability to illustrate how you got from the large collection set to the smaller production set will be imperative to responding to any objections you may encounter to the produced set.

1. Never Drop Your Laptop Bag and Run: Dig in, learn as much as you can and start building repeatable, efficient approaches.  My two cents: It’s the duty of your attorneys and providers to demonstrate competency in eDiscovery best practices.  How will you know whether they have or not unless you develop that competency yourself?

So, what do you think?  Are there other ways for CEOs to avoid eDiscovery nightmares?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: eDiscovery Malpractice Case Highlights Expectation of Higher Standards
 

Normally, eDiscovery Daily reports on cases related to eDiscovery issues after the decision has been rendered.  In this case, the mere filing of the lawsuit is significant.

Friday, we noted that competency ethics was no longer just about the law and that competency in eDiscovery best practices is expected from the attorneys and any outside providers they retain.  An interesting article from Robert Hilson at the Association of Certified eDiscovery Professionals® (ACEDS™) discusses what may be the first eDiscovery malpractice case ever filed against a law firm (McDermott Will & Emery) for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.  A copy of the article is located here.

J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., a major manufacturer of PVC piping, had hired McDermott to defend against civil False Claims Act charges concerning the quality and sale of its products to federal and state governments. After the case was filed in January 2006, it remained under seal for nearly three years.  According to the complaint, during that time, a large-scale document review ensued (160 custodians) and McDermott hired Stratify, an outside vendor, to cull through the ESI.

J-M retained Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton to replace McDermott in March 2010.  Why?  According to the complaint, McDermott worked directly with the Assistant US Attorney to develop a keyword list for identifying responsive ESI, but, despite this effort, the first production set was returned by the government after they found many privileged documents. The complaint indicates that McDermott and its contract lawyers then produced a second data set again with a large number of privileged documents even though it was filtered through a second keyword list.

J-M contends in the complaint that McDermott's attorneys “performed limited spot-checking of the contract attorneys' work, [and] did not thoroughly review the categorizations or conduct any further privilege review.”  After Sheppard replaced McDermott on the case, they asked for the privileged documents to be returned, but the “relator” refused, saying that McDermott had already done two privilege reviews before giving those documents to the government and, therefore, J-M had waived the attorney-client privilege. In the complaint, J-M contends that 3,900 privileged documents were erroneously produced by McDermott as part of 250,000 J-M electronic records that were reviewed.  It is unclear from the complaint whether McDermott provided the contract reviewers themselves or used an outside provider.  It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

So, what do you think?  Have you experienced inadvertent disclosures of privilege documents in a case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Completing Production AFTER Trial is Too Late

In DL v. District of Columbia, No. 05-1437 (RCL) (D.D.C. May 9, 2011), repeated, flagrant, and unrepentant failures of the District of Columbia to comply with discovery orders, failure to supplement discovery responses, and eventual production of thousands of e-mails—some more than two years old—after the date of trial resulted in a sanction of waiver of privilege over documents sought by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure of the District of Columbia Government to provide them with a free appropriate public education as required under the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act. On the first day of trial six years later, counsel for the District acknowledged that the District several days earlier had begun a rolling production of thousands of emails per day that was expected to continue through the end of trial. Counsel for the District stated that the court had not been informed of production problems because it had been hoped review of the documents for relevance and privilege and thus production of the documents could have been completed earlier. From the bench, the court ordered the District to produce all of the email without objection and with privilege waived within one week of the end of the trial so that plaintiffs could seek to supplement the trial record if necessary. The District sought reconsideration of the order.

Likening the District’s posture to an airplane with landing gear that deploys only after touchdown, the court denied the District’s motion. Waiver of privilege was an appropriate sanction because it was just and was proportional between offense and sanction, considering the District’s violation of multiple discovery orders and failure to meet its obligation to supplement its discovery responses. The court concluded that its sanction was justified considering prejudice to plaintiffs, prejudice to the judicial system, and the need to deter similar misconduct in the future. Since the District chose not to bring the situation to the court’s attention until the day of trial, the court “had no practical alternative short of entering a default.”

The court held that whether the District had acted in good faith and whether plaintiffs also had committed discovery violations was irrelevant:

Whether the District made a good-faith effort to produce all responsive e-mails before the trial is irrelevant. As explained above, it was not sanctioned for failing to make a good-faith effort. It was sanctioned for openly, continuously, and repeatedly violating multiple Court orders, failing to adhere to or even acknowledge the existence of the Federal Rules’ discovery framework, and committing a discovery abuse so extreme as to be literally unheard of in this Court. The Rules require more than simply making a good-faith effort to produce documents. They require adherence to a very precise framework for navigating the discovery process. Moreover, the duty to adhere to clear Court orders is among a lawyer’s most basic. Were it not for those two directives—the Federal Rules’ discovery framework and Court orders regarding discovery — discovery would devolve into pure bedlam. Disciplined adherence to those Rules and Orders on the part of courts as well as parties is the only tool our system has to wrangle the whirlwind as it were and tame an otherwise unmanageable part of the litigation process. A good-faith effort to produce documents in the absence of adherence to Court orders and the Federal Rules is useless.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever had opposing counsel try to produce documents at the beginning of trial – or even after?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.