Tag Archives: Craig Ball

Federal Judge’s E-Admissibility Chart.

21 Saturday Apr 2018

Posted by in E-Discovery

≈ Comments Off on Federal Judge’s E-Admissibility Chart.

Tags

, ,

Handy Chart on E-Admissibility, posted by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court (with hat tip to U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm)

https://bit.ly/2HFzZE1

In my opinion, Craig Ball, his seminars, and his blog, are at the top of my list of “go to” sources anything related to e-discovery. Written by U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm, this chart is e-discovery gold. Highly recommend a bookmark! -CCE

I received a fine gift this morning from U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, and with the authors’ permission, I’m sharing it with you.  It’s a splendid chart on admissibility of electronic evidence that any trial lawyer will want when going to Court.  For younger readers, I will explain what “going to Court” means in a future post.

Continue reading →

Craig Ball Presents “Introduction to Discovery in U.S. Civil Litigation.

03 Sunday Apr 2016

Posted by in Civil Procedure, Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Litigation, Research

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball Presents “Introduction to Discovery in U.S. Civil Litigation.

Tags

, , , ,

Introduction to Discovery in U.S. Civil Litigation, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/introduction-to-discovery-in-u-s-civil-litigation/

Thank you, Craig Ball, for generously sharing your materials. If you have any interest whatsoever in litigation, this is a “must” read. -CCE

I am fortunate to teach electronic discovery and digital evidence in many venues. . . .

All of these entail accompanying written material, so there is a lot of research and writing for the various courses and presentations.  Some of my students aren’t lawyers or are law students with the barest theoretical understanding of discovery.  I’ve found it’s never safe to assume that students know the mechanisms of last-century civil discovery, let alone those of modern e-discovery.  Accordingly, I penned the following short introduction to discovery in U.S. civil litigation and offer it here in case you need something like it, especially if you’re also teaching this stuff.  [It’s copyrighted, but feel free to use it with attribution]. . . .

Continue reading →

Deduplication – Craig Ball Takes Us Deeper Into The Belly of The E-Discovery Beast.

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on Deduplication – Craig Ball Takes Us Deeper Into The Belly of The E-Discovery Beast.

Tags

, , , , ,

Deduplication: Why Computers See Differences in Files that Look Alike to You, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/oe5xd63

An employee of an e-discovery service provider asked me to help him explain to his boss why deduplication works well for native files but frequently fails when applied to TIFF images.  The question intrigued me because it requires we dip our toes into the shallow end of cryptographic hashing and dispel a common misconception about electronic documents. . . .

Continue reading →

The ABC’s of Fielding Data.

29 Monday Jun 2015

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Discovery, E-Discovery, Fielded Data, Legal Technology, Metadata, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on The ABC’s of Fielding Data.

Tags

, , , ,

The Virtues of Fielding, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/the-virtues-of-fielding/

I am a member of the typewriter generation. With pencil and ink, we stored information on paper and termed them ‘documents.’ Not surprisingly, members of my generation tend to think of stored information in terms of tangible and authoritative things we persist in calling ‘documents.’ But unlike use of the word ‘folder’ to describe a data directory (despite the absence any folded thing) or the quaint shutter click made by camera phones (despite the absence of shutters), couching requests for information in discovery as demands for documents is not harmless skeuomorphism.  The outmoded thinking that electronically stored information items are just electronic paper documents makes e-discovery more difficult and costly. It’s a mindset that hampers legal professionals as they strive toward competence in e-discovery.

Does clinging to the notion of ‘document’ really hold us back? . . .

Continue reading →

E-Discovery Red Herring?

20 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Red Herring?

Tags

, , , , ,

Riley Cell Phone Decision a Red Herring in E-Discovery, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/riley-cell-phone-decision-a-red-herring-in-e-discovery/

Yesterday’s post on the Digital Strata blog reported on a 2014 order of a U.S. District Court in Connecticut that applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) to civil discovery. I think the Court’s reliance on Riley is misplaced in the civil discovery context; not just because Riley involved state action, but because civil discovery affords a litigant greater protection from oppression and intrusion than that attendant to the search and seizure in Riley. . . .

Continue reading →

No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

02 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on No Perfection Standard In E-Discovery?

Tags

, , , , ,

Is There a Right to Fail in E-Discovery?, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/is-there-a-right-to-fail-in-e-discovery/

Disagreements about scope and process in e-discovery shouldn’t split between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests. After all, everyone is a requesting and producing party, whether north or south of the ‘v.’ Yet, the reality is that most defense counsel see themselves as producing parties, and most plaintiffs’ counsel identify with requesting parties. That unfortunate alignment poisons our ability to set aside allegiances and be officers of the Court mutually determined to find the most effective and efficient means to discover evidence illuminating the issues.

Cooperation in e-discovery is derided as naive in an adversarial system of justice, and ‘discovery about discovery’ is vilified as a diversionary tactic, a modern take on the maxim, ‘if you can’t try the case, then try your opponent.’ Counsel for responding parties are quick to note that no party is obliged to deliver a perfect production. They’re absolutely right. Perfection is not the standard. But, is a producing party entitled to fail before a requesting party may inquire into the scope and process of e-discovery? Must we wait until the autopsy to question the care plan? . . . .

Continue reading →

Slip-and-Fall Evidence Spoilation A Slippery Slope?

06 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation, Personal Injury, Requests for Production, Slip and Fall

≈ Comments Off on Slip-and-Fall Evidence Spoilation A Slippery Slope?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Slippery Slope: Harrell v. Pathmark, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/2318/

One e-discovery blog I never fail to read is Doug Austin’s eDiscoveryDaily. It’s hard to come up with a post every day; yet, Doug makes it look easy. Each post is a quick read with little editorializing; and, Doug faithfully includes a link to the opinion. That last may seem a small thing; but, some bloggers don’t do it (or only share the full text of the decision with paying customers). There’s no substitute for reading the case.

Today, Doug posted on Harrell v. Pathmark, (USDC EDPA, February 26, 2015), where the Court dismisses the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall injury claim on summary judgment. I don’t think the Court got it wrong on the merits; but, in weighing in, sua sponte, on the e-spoliation issue, I’m reminded of the maxim, ‘hard cases make bad law.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Why Aren’t All Lawyers And Law Students Trained In E-Discovery And Should They Be?

07 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by in Continuing Legal Education, Diligence, Discovery, E-Discovery, Ethics Opinions, Federal Rules of Discovery, Legal Ethics, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Why Aren’t All Lawyers And Law Students Trained In E-Discovery And Should They Be?

Tags

, , , , ,

The Conundrum of Competence in E-Discovery: Need Input, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/the-conundrum-of-competence-in-e-discovery-need-input/

I frequently blast lawyers for their lack of competence when it comes to electronic evidence. I’m proud to be a lawyer and admire all who toil in the fields of justice; but I cannot hide my shame at how my brilliant colleagues have shirked and dodged their duty to master modern evidence.

So, you might assume I’d be tickled by the efforts of the American Bar Association and the State Bar of California to weave technical competency into the rules of professional conduct. And I am, a little. Requiring competence is just part of the solution to the competence crisis. The balance comes from supplying the education and training needed to become competent. You can’t just order someone who’s lost to ’get there;’ you must show them the way. In this, the bar associations and, to a lesser extent, the law schools have not just failed; they’ve not tried to succeed.

The legal profession is dominated by lawyers and judges. I state the obvious to expose the insidious: the profession polices itself. We set the standards for our own, and our standard setters tend to be our old guard. What standard setter defines himself out of competence? Hence, it’s extraordinary that the ABA commentary to Model Rule 1.1 and the proposed California ethics opinion have emerged at all.

These laudable efforts just say ‘get there.’ They do not show us the way. . . .

Continue reading →

Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

08 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Federal Rules of Discovery, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Native Format, Outlook, Preservation, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery? Is There Such A Thing?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol2urvf

In case you have not noticed, Craig Ball is re-posting older articles, as he explains below. Truly folks, when it comes to e-discovery, when Craig Ball speaks, I listen. Maybe you should too. 

I have posted many of his revisited posts. To find them all, visit his blog, Ball In Your Court at https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/. -CCE

This is the thirteenth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations.  As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Do-It-Yourself Digital Discovery [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2006]

Recently, a West Texas firm received a dozen Microsoft Outlook PST files from a client. Like the dog that caught the car, they weren’t sure what to do next.  Even out on the prairie, they’d heard of online hosting and e-mail analytics, but worried about the cost. They wondered: Did they really need an e-discovery vendor? Couldn’t they just do it themselves?

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ’Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

As a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. ‘Guard the chain of custody,’ I want to warn. ‘Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!’ But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, ‘Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.’

Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Sometimes, that means doing it yourself.

The West Texas lawyers sought a way to access and search the Outlook e-mail and attachments in the PSTs. It had to be quick and easy. It had to protect the integrity of the evidence. And it had to be cheap. They wanted what many lawyers will come to see they need: the tools and techniques to stay in touch with the evidence in smaller cases without working through vendors and experts.

What’s a PST?

Microsoft Outlook is the most popular business e-mail and calendaring client, but don’t confuse Outlook with Outlook Express, a simpler application bundled with Windows. Outlook Express stores messages in plain text, by folder name, in files with the extension .DBX. Outlook stores local message data, attachments, folder structure and other information in an encrypted, often-massive database file with the extension .PST. Because the PST file structure is complex, proprietary and poorly documented, some programs have trouble interpreting PSTs.

What About Outlook?

Couldn’t they just load the files in Outlook and search? Many do just that, but there are compelling reasons why Outlook is the wrong choice for an electronic discovery search and review tool, foremost among them being that it doesn’t protect the integrity of the evidence. Outlook changes PST files. Further, Outlook searches are slow, don’t include attachments (but see my concluding comments below) and can’t be run across multiple mail accounts. . . . .

.

Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Relevance, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Path to E-Mail Production II, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/q4uozfh

This is the seventh in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

The Path to Production: Retention Policies That Work

(Part II of IV)

[Originally published in Law Technology News, November 2005]

We continue down the path to production of electronic mail. Yesterday, I reminded you to look beyond the e-mail server to the many other places e-mail hides. Now, having identified the evidence, we’re obliged to protect it from deletion, alteration and corruption.

Preservation
Anticipation of a claim is all that’s required to trigger a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, including fragile, ever-changing electronic data. Preservation allows backtracking on the path to production, but fail to preserve evidence and you’ve burned your bridges.

Complicating our preservation effort is the autonomy afforded e-mail users. They create quirky folder structures, commingle personal and business communications and — most dangerous of all — control deletion and retention of messages.

Best practices dictate that we instruct e-mail custodians to retain potentially relevant messages and that we regularly convey to them sufficient information to assess relevance in a consistent manner. In real life, hold directives alone are insufficient. Users find it irresistibly easy to delete data, so anticipate human frailty and act to protect evidence from spoliation at the hands of those inclined to destroy it. Don’t leave the fox guarding the henhouse. . . .

Continue reading →

Time For A New Office Computer?

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Apple, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Time For A New Office Computer?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Give Away your Computer, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/give-away-your-computer-revisited/

This is the fourth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Give Away Your Computer 

[Originally published in Law Technology News, July 2005]

With the price of powerful computer systems at historic lows, who isn’t tempted to upgrade? But, what do you do with a system you’ve been using if it’s less than four or five-years old and still has some life left in it? Pass it on to a friend or family member or donate it to a school or civic organization and you’re ethically obliged to safeguard client data on the hard drive. Plus, you’ll want to protect your personal data from identity thieves and snoopers. Hopefully you already know that deleting confidential files and even formatting the drive does little to erase your private information—it’s like tearing out the table of contents but leaving the rest of the book. How do you be a Good Samaritan without jeopardizing client confidences and personal privacy? . . . .

Continue reading →

What Is The Case About And What Are You Looking For?

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Hard Drives, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on What Is The Case About And What Are You Looking For?

Tags

, , , , ,

Don’t Try This at Home, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/dont-try-this-at-home-revisited/

This is the fifth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Don’t Try This at Home

[Originally published in Law Technology News, August 2005]

The legal assistant on the phone asked, “Can you send us copies of their hard drives?”

As court-appointed Special Master, I’d imaged the contents of the defendant’s computers and served as custodian of the data for several months. The plaintiff’s lawyer had been wise to lock down the data before it disappeared, but like the dog that caught the car, he didn’t know what to do next. Now, with trial a month away, it was time to start looking at the evidence.

“Not unless the judge orders me to give them to you,” I replied. . . .

Craig Ball on E-Discovery’s Concept Search Tools.

10 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Concept Search Tools, Discovery, E-Discovery

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Unclear on the Concept, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/1953/

This is the second in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Unclear on the Concept

 [Originally published in Law Technology News, May 2005]

A colleague buttonholed me at the American Bar Association’s recent TechShow and asked if I’d visit with a company selling concept search software to electronic discovery vendors.  Concept searching allows electronic documents to be found based on the ideas they contain instead of particular words. A concept search for “exploding gas tank” should also flag documents that address fuel-fed fires, defective filler tubes and the Ford Pinto. An effective concept search engine “learns” from the data it analyzes and applies its own language intelligence, allowing it to, e.g., recognize misspelled words and explore synonymous keywords.

I said, “Sure,” and was delivered into the hands of an earnest salesperson who explained that she was having trouble persuading courts and litigators that the company’s concept search engine worked. How could they reach them and establish credibility? She extolled the virtues of their better mousetrap, including its ability to catch common errors, like typing “manger” when you mean “manager.”

But when we tested the product against its own 100,000 document demo dataset, it didn’t catch misspelled terms or search for synonyms. It couldn’t tell “manger” from “manager.” Phrases were hopeless. Worse, it didn’t reveal its befuddlement. The program neither solicited clarification of the query nor offered any feedback revealing that it was clueless on the concept. . . .

Using Location And Time To Exonerate Or Implicate.

26 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Criminal Law, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Expert Witness, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Using Location And Time To Exonerate Or Implicate.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Location. Location. Location., by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mq2u5zv

Okay, you have to admit that it’s pretty cool when a judge calls to pick your brain! – CCE 

I’m peripatetic. My stuff lives in Austin; but, I’m in a different city every few days. Lately looking for a new place for my stuff to await my return, I’m reminded of the first three rules of real estate investing: 1. Location; 2. Location and 3. Location.

Location has long been crucial in trial, too: ‘So, you claim you were at home alone on the night of November 25, 2014 when this heinous crime was committed! Is that what you expect this jury to believe?’ If you can pinpoint people’s locations at particular times, you can solve crimes. If you have precise geolocation data, you can calculate speed, turn up trysts, prove impairment and even show who had the green light. Location and time are powerful tools to implicate and exonerate.

A judge called today to inquire about ways in which cell phones track and store geolocation data. He wanted to know what information is recoverable from a seized phone.  I answered that, depending upon the model and its usage, a great deal of geolocation data may emerge, most of it not tied to making phone calls. Tons of geolocation data persist both within and without phones.

Cell phones have always been trackable by virtue of their essential communication with cell tower sites. . . .

Craig Ball’s E-Discovery Tips For Judges.

18 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball’s E-Discovery Tips For Judges.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

10 E-Discovery Tips for Judges, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/1370/

I speak with a lot of judges about e-discovery and digital evidence.  I’ve taught at Federal Judicial Center programs from coast-to-coast and addressed confabs of judges in various states. Some of these presentations have turned into annual pilgrimages.  Have PowerPoint.  Will travel.

It’s a privilege to address judges because, among their own, judges are more cordial, relaxed and candid than in their courtrooms.  But, it’s also a responsibility and a challenge.  In the state systems, I can often be a judge’s first exposure to e-discovery.

Lawyers want the quick course in e-discovery.  They expect to glean ESI skills in minutes, before they glaze over with the talk of metadata and forms of production. Lawyers seek the canned checklist or scripted list of questions, and little care if they understand what the check boxes mean or what the follow up question should be.

It drives me bonkers. . . .

Craig Ball On An Essential Lawyer Skill – The Custodial Hold.

23 Saturday Aug 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball On An Essential Lawyer Skill – The Custodial Hold.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Custodial Hold: Trust But Verify, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/custodial-hold-trust-but-verify/

Please click on the link to the Pension Committee opinion (you’ll see it in Craig Ball’s article). You’re getting two for one here. Besides, when it’s Craig Ball, you know it’s going to be good. -CCE

Long before the Pension Committee opinion, my dear friend and revered colleague, Browning Marean, presciently observed that the ability to frame and implement a legal hold would prove an essential lawyer skill.  Browning understood, as many lawyers are only now coming to appreciate, that ‘legal hold’ is more than just a communique.  It’s a multi-pronged, organic process that must be tailored to the needs of the case like a fine suit of clothes.  For all the sensible emphasis on use of a repeatable process, the most successful and cost-effective legal holds demonstrate a bespoke character from the practiced hand of an awake, aware and able attorney.

Unfortunately, that deliberate, evolving character is one of the two things that people hate most about legal holds (the other being the cost).  They want legal hold to be a checklist, a form letter, a tool–all of which have value, but none of which suffice, individually or collectively, to forestall the need for a capable person who understands the ESI environment and is accountable for getting the legal hold right.  It’s a balancing act; one maximizing the retention of relevant, material, non-duplicative information while minimizing the cost, complexity and business disruption attendant to meeting one’s legal responsibilities.  Achieving balance means you can’t choose one or the other, you need both. . . .

What Makes Attorney Fee’s “Unconscionable”?

19 Thursday Jun 2014

Posted by in Advertising, Law Office Management, Management, Marketing

≈ Comments Off on What Makes Attorney Fee’s “Unconscionable”?

Tags

, , , , ,

Unconscionable, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/unconscionable/

 Before I limited my law practice to work for courts and counsel, I was a trial lawyer working for contingent fees.  For 20+ years, I never charged for an hour of my time.  I funded the cases, did the work and was paid only if I recovered damages for my clients.  I charged 40% plus expenses; so, for the most part my clients and I shared roughly equally in the outcome.  At the time, I thought my fees proper, and they were certainly ‘industry standard.’  Everyone charged about the same, not from collusion but from plagiarism: lawyers didn’t draft fee agreements; we copied them.

But as I look back, I see that I could have charged less—even much less—and still have made a good living.  The only limits on what I could charge were the marketplace, where I saw no competition on price, and ethical precepts dictating a lawyer may not charge an illegal or unconscionable fee. . . .

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Authentication, Bates Numbers, Computer Forensics, Databases, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Federal Judges, Federal Rules of Discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Judges, Legal Forms, Legal Technology, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A Guide to Forms of Production, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/a-guide-to-forms-of-production/

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production! Although Mr. Ball says there is much he wants to re-organize and rewrite, I can’t wait to dive in.  You will find the hyperlink to the Guide when you go to the web site. Thank you, Craig Ball! -CCE

Semiannually, I compile a primer on some key aspect of electronic discovery.  In the past, I’ve written on computer forensics, backup systems, metadata and databases. For 2014, I’ve completed the first draft of the Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production, intended to serve as a primer on making sensible and cost-effective specifications for production of electronically stored information.  It’s the culmination and re-purposing of much that I’ve written on forms heretofore, along with new material extolling the advantages of native and near-native forms.

Reviewing the latest draft, there is much I want to add and re-organize; accordingly, it will be a work-in-progress for months to come.  Consider it a “public comment” version.  The linked document includes exemplar verbiage for requests and model protocols for your adaption and adoption.  I plan to add more forms and examples. . . .

Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Affidavits, Cross-Examination, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Exhibits, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Experts, Forensic Expert Witness, Hearsay, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Becoming a Better Digital Forensics Witness, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kgm8epj

I love to testify—in court, at deposition, in declarations and affidavits—and I even like writing reports about my findings in forensic exams.

I love the challenge—the chance to mix it up with skilled interrogators, defend my opinions and help the decision makers hear what the electronic evidence tells us.  There is a compelling human drama being played out in those bits and bytes, and computer forensic examiners are the fortunate few who get to tell the story.  It’s our privilege to help the finders of fact understand the digital evidence.[1]

This post is written for computer forensic examiners and outlines ways to become a more effective witness and common pitfalls you can avoid.  But the advice offered applies as well to almost anyone who takes the stand. . . .

. . .

Craig Ball Shows Why ESI Form Should Follow Function.

16 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Outlook

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball Shows Why ESI Form Should Follow Function.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Forms that Function, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/kgokpmd

The criterion, “Will the form produced function in an e-mail client?” enables parties to explore a broad range of functional native and near-native forms, not just PSTs.  It an objective “acid test” to determine if e-mail will be produced in a reasonably usable form; that is, a form not too far degraded from the way the data is used by the parties and witnesses in the ordinary course.

Craig Ball Revisits Gigabytes.

15 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Excel, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Word

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball Revisits Gigabytes.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Revisiting ‘How Many Documents in a Gigabyte?’, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/npc3jn3

[I]’m happy to point you to some notable work by my friend, John Tredennick. I’ve known John since the emerging technology was fire and watched with awe and admiration as John transitioned from old-school trial lawyer to visionary forensic technology entrepreneur running e-discovery service provider, Catalyst. John is as close to a Renaissance man as anyone I know in e-discovery, and when John speaks, I listen.

Lately, John Tredennick shared some revealing metrics on the Catalyst blog looking at the relationship between data and document volumes, an update to his 2011 article called, How Many Documents in a Gigabyte?

Craig Ball Answers His Mail.

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Legal Technology, Metadata, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball Answers His Mail.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Good Questions!, by Craig Ball, Ball in Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/good-questions/

As always, Craig Ball delivers. Great answers to e-discovery terminology and best practices. -CCE

When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Pre-Trial, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on When You Want Fast and Cheap, Adobe Acrobat Does the Trick in a Pinch.

Tags

, , , , ,

Acrobat to the Rescue: Searching Unsearchable Productions, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/paxgrfn

Email Preservation of Gmail Can be Tricky and Tedious, But Not Difficult.

17 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Email Preservation of Gmail Can be Tricky and Tedious, But Not Difficult.

Tags

, , , ,

Collecting Gmail for Preservation, by Craig Ball, Ball in Your Court BlogExquisite-gmail red

http://tinyurl.com/mcynpsl

As Mr. Ball points out in this excerpt below, Gmail preservation is tedious, but not difficult:

[T]hough collecting and validating the complete contents of a Gmail account can be tricky and tedious, it’s not all that difficult to do.  Happily, unless you do something really dumb, it’s unlikely that even a botched Gmail collection effort will harm the contents of the account.

E-Discovery and the Zamundan Royal Bottom Wipers

20 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery and the Zamundan Royal Bottom Wipers

Tags

, , ,

Ball in your Court

toilet paper moneyI’m on a crusade to underscore the need for lawyer competence in that crucial “e” that precedes “e-discovery.”  It’s no longer enough to understand the law in isolation; today’s lawyer must understand some fundamentals of information technology and electronic evidence.  My efforts often prove quixotic, as everywhere I’m met with the attitude that electronic discovery isn’t a lawyer’s concern:  “It’s something you hire people to do,” they say.

Certainly, we must hire people to do things we cannot possibly do.  But I contend that we hire people to do many things we could learn to do ourselves, and do economically.  Remember Eddie Murphy’s royal backside wipers in Coming to America? All it takes is money to burn; and if it’s someone else’s money, who really cares?

But at what point do lawyers outsource themselves into superfluity?  Clients can hire vendors.  Bigger clients can and should bring much of…

View original post 1,024 more words