|
Have a friend or co-worker you think may be interested in our newsletter?
| |
|
Did you know... - Waiver of attorney-client and work product protection for outside counsel interviews of over 1,000 electronic records custodians regarding ESI preservation problems. Interview summaries provided to plaintiff and court which deemed to have waived privilege. In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2310288 (D.Del. June 4, 2008).
- In-house counsel’s inadequate electronic record preservation justifies full forensic search of corporate founder’s laptop. Treppel v. Biovail Corp, 2008 WL 866594 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2008).
- Judge limits hard drive imaging to relevant files only. Binary Semantics Ltd. v. Minitab, Inc., Case No. 07-1750 (M.D. Pa. May 5, 2008).
| |
|
Do you have a question or challenge you'd like the experts at IE Discovery
to address? Please email us, and we'd be happy to help you plan
your strategy.
| |
|
|
|
By D. Douglas Austin, Technical Consultant, IE Discovery Discovery has changed. It is no longer about collecting, copying and reviewing boxes of paper documents for one case, and then collecting, copying and reviewing those same documents again for subsequent cases. Often times, attorneys are producing the same subset of documents in multiple cases. Several issues unique to electronic data hamper the ability of organizations to litigate cases as effectively as they have in the past, including the proliferation of electronic information, evolving rules and standards, the redundant use of documents in multiple cases and escalating costs. Numerous studies show that the discovery phase accounts for between 50 and 90 percent of total litigation costs. Forrester Research Inc. predicts e-Discovery technology spending will grow from $1.4 billion in 2006 to more than $4.8 billion by 2011. The extent and escalation of discovery costs make it critical for organizations to manage discovery as efficiently as possible. A wise person once described the definition of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Managing discovery the way you’ve always done it – one case at a time, over and over again expecting a different result – is insanity! New challenges require a new approach to managing discovery for all the cases your organization faces.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy O'Neil Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery It’s the kind of situation that can keep a lawyer up at night — the fear that, in the course of e-discovery, privileged documents may inadvertently be disclosed to the other side. While the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure provide for “clawing-back” such information, retractions are not guaranteed, particularly if a litigant cannot prove it took reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure. That is a lesson one company recently learned the hard way.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Angela Reeves, Manager, Standards Department, IE Discovery Sign Up now for our Complimentary CLE Webcast on Duplicate Data! De-duplication sounds so straightforward in theory: Simply identify identical documents within a collection, and remove duplicates from the review and production workflow so that only one copy of each document remains. In reality, however, de-duplication is far more complex. Today’s high-volume of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) encourages a proliferation of duplicate documents. For example, you may create a spreadsheet and save it to your local drive. Then, you may save it to a shared network drive for your colleagues to access. Finally, you may attach the spreadsheet to an e-mail and send it to a client for review. That night, the same spreadsheet in all three locations gets backed up to your company’s backup systems. Without much thought, you’ve created multiple versions of the same document—all of which may be collected during discovery.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Angela Reeves, Manager, Standards Department, IE Discovery For many attorneys, the idea of relying on an automated process to review documents for relevance and privilege is uncomfortable, if not downright scary. Nevertheless, the reality is that the amount of data involved in today’s complex litigation often presents no other choice. When a case involves hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of documents, it’s usually too cost and time prohibitive to perform a manual review of every document in the collection. Instead, high-volume cases often dictate that we rely on automated processes to relieve some of the burden of relevance and privilege review.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Kelley Hempson, Project Manager, IE Discovery Bob stood there, the judge high on his bench staring at him, the jury members whispering amongst themselves and glancing at him, opposing counsel smirking as she hunkered behind her laptop screen. He felt his hands begin to dampen as he continued to search feverishly through one binder then another, looking over his shoulder at the two associates who were just as fervently looking for the document. From above him, Bob heard the judge clear his throat and ask just when he thought the exhibit might be ready to be introduced into evidence. Just where in those 18 boxes of documents was the binder containing the transcript portion of the witness’ previous deposition testimony?
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy O'Neil Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery If faced with a bet-the-company lawsuit, government investigation or class-action litigation, most attorneys would probably have to scramble to manage the discovery aspects involved in the case – especially if electronic discovery was involved. In fact, most in-house counsel and attorneys with government agencies know that their discovery management systems are not in perfect health. For many, it’s a question of degrees -- are the various methods, processes and procedures that involve discovery in critical condition, or do they just need a little strengthening of the immune system?
Read the entire article
|
|
|
