|
Have a friend or co-worker you think may be interested in our newsletter?
| |
|
Did you know... - In a recent case Exxon Mobil stated that its employees generate 5.2 million emails daily
- U.S. companies face an average of 305 pending lawsuits at any one time. Large companies face an average of 556 cases.
- From 2005-2010, organizations that have not adopted formal e-discovery processes will spend nearly twice as much on gathering & producing documents as they will on legal services
| |
|
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 Amy Dove and Karen Pruitt, Project Managers, IE Discovery Litigation can feel a lot like the movie “Groundhog Day.” In that film, Bill Murray keeps living the same day over and over again until he figures out a way to break the cycle and move forward. E-discovery for companies or government agencies with recurring litigation can feel the same way—it seems like the same documents and files get reviewed over and over again. It’s the same documents but different lawsuit. It’s no movie, though. When an organization works each case separately or with multiple e-discovery consultants who don’t use a centralized system, a single document or electronic file may be produced again and again for different cases. Not only do multiple, separate review teams see the same file, but that file must be collected, processed, reviewed and produced for each case. Then, the same file is sent to reside in separate databases, walled off from other teams working on similar, but unrelated, cases for the same company or agency. Fortunately, it doesn’t take a Hollywood ending for government agencies and companies to break that cycle of maddening inefficiency and costly e-discovery. Developing long term national contracts with an e-discovery provider saves money and time, freeing in-house attorneys and outside counsel to focus on strategy and long-term planning, rather than document collection, review and production.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery Now that the Federal Rules Amendments have gone into effect, the first 120 days of litigation have become some of the most critical days in the life span of a case. In today’s legal and technical climate you now have a small window of opportunity to leverage the new meet and confer requirements to your advantage. You can do so by taking advantage of the fact that most litigators are not technically savvy, nor do they have their technical and legal house in order. If you can walk into the meet and confer meeting – armed and dangerous – with your quiver full of technical knowledge then you can leverage that knowledge to your advantage. This allows you to walk into the meeting knowing what your client has, what your client needs, and what you need from opposing counsel. Going into the meeting fully prepared gives you the tactical advantage of painting your opponent into the proverbial corner if you need to. More importantly, you cannot afford to not be savvy about technology and electronic data as it will give your opponent an enormous advantage.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery It used to be that attorneys were obligated to touch every piece of paper in their cases and review every document that opposing counsel provided. That model is changing, though, as electronic information proliferates. According to International Data Corp., in 2006, the amount of digital information created, captured and replicated was 161 exabytes or 161 billion gigabytes. This is about 3 million times the information in all the books ever written.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Jennifer Scrafford, Project Manager, IE Discovery Most in-house counsel know the types of inquiries that should trigger evidence preservation or collection protocols. Once there is reason to believe there will be litigation or investigation, the duty to preserve kicks in immediately. But what’s next? First, make a list of people who are likely to have control over potentially evidentiary documents and contact this long list of custodians. Then send out a document retention letter or request for documents and wait for your data to roll in, right? Wrong. Before sending any communication to your custodians, you should consider that they are not attorneys and are usually uncomfortable with the entire litigation process. Considering and having ready answers for the following ten questions–which your custodians are sure to voice–will help to make your collection efficient and cost effective. It will avoid business interruptions and settle the fear and anxiety your custodian may be feeling. Being organized about these answers will inspire confidence and cooperation from your custodians and will be sure to make your job easier.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By D. Douglas Austin, Technical Consultant, IE Discovery The concept of native file review is attractive to many litigators. A large component of electronic discovery costs is “processing”, which can add considerable time to the review and production of responsive materials. The ability to avoid paying for expensive conversion to TIFF/PDF formats and to start reviewing the source files right away enables litigators to meet increasingly aggressive production timelines while also reducing costs. However, there are several issues to consider when undertaking a native file review project to ensure a high quality of review while accomplishing these objectives.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
By Stacy Jackson, Corporate Counsel, IE Discovery Lawyers have been drowning in data for years now as the exponential growth in the volume of electronic data continues to expand at a whirlwind pace. In order to deal with this overwhelming volume of data, lawyers have been using keyword searches to sift and sort through the mounds of data in search of what is relevant and privileged. Until now, lawyers were left to their own devices when it came to keyword searching; however, some recent cases have begun to shed some light on the subject and provide some parameters for what is – and is not – acceptable.
Read the entire article
|
|
|
