Tag Archives: E-Discovery

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 →

Defendants Recover E-Discovery Costs And How They Did It.

04 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Legal Writing, Motions, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Defendants Recover E-Discovery Costs And How They Did It.

Tags

, , ,

Court Finds Defendants Are Entitled to Recover $55,649.98 In e-Discovery Costs, by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/pdqnz3a

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Center, Inc. v. Leslea, No. 11-cv-03417-CMA-MJW, 2015 WL 638198 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2015)

Plaintiffs brought a ‘Motion to Review Clerk’s Taxing of Costs Under F.R.C.P. 54(D)(1).’ Specifically, Plaintiffs sought review of the clerk’s determination “concerning the costs taxed amount of $55,649.98, which accounts for Defendants contracting with a private consulting company, Cyopsis, to retrieve and convert ESI into a retrievable format to produce information requested by Plaintiffs.” The court held that ‘[b]ecause Defendants’ costs related to the electronically stored information (‘ESI’) are expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), and Plaintiffs were aware that Defendants would have to retain an outside consultant to retrieve and convert the ESI into a retrievable format, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.’ . . .

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. . . . .

.

Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

18 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Bankruptcy Court Rules, Court Rules, Courts, Discovery, E-Discovery, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Local Rules

≈ Comments Off on Honey Pot of Federal Court E-Discovery Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues, Electronic Discovery Law Blog, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/p3d6srx

No doubt many of you have already have bookmarked this site. K&L Gates compiled this comprehensive list of local rules, forms and guidelines for U.S. District Courts and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. At the bottom of their post, you will find a link that will take you directly to the U.S. Court’s website of all federal court rules. Thank you, K&L Gates. -CCE

Local Rules, Forms and Guidelines of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues

Many United States District Courts now require compliance with special local rules, forms, or guidelines addressing the discovery of electronically stored information. Below is a collection of those local rules, forms and guidelines, with links to the relevant materials. Please note also that many individual judges and magistrate judges have created their own forms or have crafted their own preferred protocols for e-discovery. These are generally available on the website of the individual judge or magistrate judge and care should be taken to ensure you are aware of any such forms or guidelines in any court you may appear in.

Continue reading →

E-Discovery Is Scary!

17 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Native Format, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery Is Scary!

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

How NOT to Produce Facebook Evidence, by Molly DiBianca, The Delaware Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l8tvv2c

Electronic discovery, the collection and production of electronic documents in litigation, is a scary thing to many lawyers. Some are so scared by it, in fact, that they just deny that it exists and continue to produce only hard-copy documents. Of course, that is a terrible idea. And not at all in compliance with the rules of procedure. But, alas, it is what it is.

There are times that a lawyer will want to produce electronic records, such as text messages, emails, and, heaven forbid, social-media content, but simply not know how to do it. I had an opposing counsel call me once and say that he was willing to produce his client’s relevant Facebook posts if I would show him how to do it. Ummmm, no.

My point, though, is that lawyers are ethically bound to understand and comply with the applicable e-discovery rules but, as a matter of practical reality, that does not mean that they comply.  Which is why e-discovery continues to be a predominant subject for discussion in the legal profession.

A recent case from South Carolina gives a pretty good example of how not to produce electronically stored information (ESI). In Wellin v. Wellin, the defendants moved to compel the production of certain ESI, including emails, text messages, and Facebook posts in ‘native format.’ (Native format means, in the most basic sense, that if it was originally in electronic form, you must produce it in electronic form, as opposed to paper form).

The plaintiffs apparently had attempted to produce the requested items but, instead of producing the responsive material in native format, they . . . [wait for it, wait for it] . . .  .-

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. . . .

Choosing The Best E-Discovery Document Review Platform For Your Project.

11 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Coding, Document Review, E-Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Choosing The Best E-Discovery Document Review Platform For Your Project.

Tags

, , , ,

How To Choose The Best Document Review Platform, Part 1, by Jeff Bennion, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ol6wxf4

When you are planning a document review project, the selection of your document review platform is critical. In a nutshell, document review is the process of organizing and categorizing large amounts of data to find the small percentage of documents that will end up as exhibits. The data is usually stored on an offsite server and is accessed through an online review platform. Although the coding of documents is usually pretty standard across platforms (a list of documents, a document viewer window, and a panel for your tags), the features that each platform has to help you organize your key docs for depositions, hearings, and trial are not the same. . . .

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. . . .

E-Discovery’s Legal Search Exact Recall – What To Expect.

01 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery

≈ Comments Off on E-Discovery’s Legal Search Exact Recall – What To Expect.

Tags

, , ,

In Legal Search Exact Recall Can Never Be Known – Part One, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team™

http://tinyurl.com/otvoewc

In legal search you can never know exactly what recall level you have attained. You can only know a probable range of recall. For instance, you can never know that you have attained 80% recall, but you can know that you have attained between 70% and 90% recall. Even the range is a probable range, not certain. Exact knowledge of recall is impossible because there are too many documents in legal search to ever know for certain how many of them are relevant, and how many are irrelevant. I will explain all of these things in this three-part blog, plus show you a new way to calculate probable recall range that I have recently come up with.

Difficulty of Recall in Legal Search

In legal search recall is the percentage of target documents found, typically relevant documents. Thus, for instance, if you know that there are 100 relevant documents in a collection of 1,000, and you find 80 of them, then you know that you have attained 80% recall. . . .

Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.

24 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Breach, Contract Law, Discovery, E-Discovery, Litigation, Motion to Compel, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Shocking! A Court Frustrated by Parties’ E-Discovery Tactics.

Tags

, , , , , ,

E=Frustrated Court Crafts ‘New and Simpler Approach to Discovery,’ Identifies Search Terms to be Utilized by Plaintiff, posted in Case Summaries by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/kerbox6

Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S, 2014 WL 6908867 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014)

In this breach of contract case, the court granted in part Defendant’s motion to compel and, in light of Plaintiff’s piecemeal production (which the court had earlier cautioned against) and other discovery failures, fashioned a ‘new and simpler approach’ to discovery, including the identification of 13 search terms/phrases to be utilized when searching ‘ALL [of Plaintiff’s] corporate documents, files, communications, and recordings. . .’ The court also ordered the plaintiff and all counsel of record to file a sworn statement confirming its ‘good-faith effort to identify sources of documents; that a complete search of those sources for each of the [identified] phrases occurred; and that the search results [were] furnished to [Defendant].’

Discovery in this case was contentious and resulted in at least one prior motion to compel, which the court granted in favor of the defendant. At that time, the court warned the plaintiff ‘not to engage in piecemeal production of materials it has located that are responsive to Optimum Energy’s unobjectionable requests.’ Plaintiff subsequently produced documents on nine separate occasions.

Following the prior motion to compel, Defendant also learned, for the first time, of a ‘five-step development process,’ that it believed was highly relevant to its claims, and which caused it to believe that the plaintiff was withholding documents from production. Accordingly, Defendant filed a second motion to compel and sought sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery behavior, including its delayed production of relevant information.

Taking up the motion, the court expressed its frustration with ‘the continual and growing animosity between the parties, an animosity that has slowed the progress of the case and that has required repeated judicial intervention.’ The court also noted that despite the bickering between parties, neither had ever filed a motion for a protective order ‘[n]or ha[d] any party foregone passive-aggressive snarking and filed a formal motion under Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to complain about material misrepresentations in motion papers.’ ‘Instead,’ the court continued, ‘the parties would prefer that the Court forget what the actual claims are in this case and start obsessing over details . . . .’

Is It That Hard To Follow Rule 34? Not According To The Judge.

28 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by in E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production, Rule 34

≈ Comments Off on Is It That Hard To Follow Rule 34? Not According To The Judge.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Rule 34: As Basic As You Get, by Joseph Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mbrcqlf

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal is one of the new heroes of eDiscovery jurisprudence. In Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, the good Judge opened with the following on Rule 34:

Most lawyers (and hopefully judges) would be forgiven if they could not recite on demand some of the more obscure of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 80 (Stenographic Transcript as Evidence) and Rule 64 (Seizing a Person or Property) come to mind. But Rule 34 (Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things) is about as basic to any civil case as it gets. And yet, over and over again, the undersigned is confronted with misapprehension of its standards and elements by even experienced counsel. Unfortunately, this case presents yet another example.

Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147643, 1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014).

Here is what happened: The Defendant served discovery requests on the Plaintiff and wanted the discovery and organized and labeled to identify the requests to which they were responsive; The Plaintiff did not want to do that and instead produced 41,000 pages of discovery, which ended with the Court ordering re-production for not following either Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) or (ii). Venture Corp. Ltd., at *1-2.

The Tactical Document Dump

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 is supposed to prevent the ‘document dump,’ which was the attorney Cold War equivalent of a doomsday weapon. . . .

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. . . .

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

11 Thursday Sep 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Bad Stipulations To E-Discovery – Just Don’t.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Don’t Stipulate to Not Follow the Form of Production Rules, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kxr9gt5

Here is my advice: NEVER agree to a stipulation to produce native files when “it is more practical to do so” and agree to productions in PAPER, PDF’s, or TIFFs. Melian Labs v. Triology LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124343 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 4, 2014).

That is what happened in Melian Labs v. Triology LLC. It reads like a personal Sum of All Fears for anyone who has spent years working with ESI, because the Court denied motions to compel email and spreadsheets in native files with metadata, because of the parties’ Rule 26(f) stipulation. . . .

Avoidable E-Discovery Mistake – A Good Lesson on Proportionality.

02 Tuesday Sep 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Avoidable E-Discovery Mistake – A Good Lesson on Proportionality.

Tags

, , , , ,

Nebraska, Where Proportionality is Alive and Well in Discovery, by Joshua Gilliand, Esq., Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/qgymkto

One lesson from United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, is that maybe you should take depositions of key parties and use interrogatories to find out relevant information to your case before asking for over 40,000 records that contain the personal information of unrelated third-parties to a lawsuit. . . .

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. . . .

New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

13 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation, Privilege Log

≈ Comments Off on New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Rule Limiting Privilege Log Practice to Take Effect, by Suevon Lee, New York Commercial Litigation Insider Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p8wwuhq

In an age of exploding electronic discovery that has multiplied the cost and scope of document review, litigants in New York’s Commercial Division will soon have the benefit of revised privilege log practice.

Starting September 2, new Rule 11-b, signed Tuesday by Chief Administrative Judge Gail Prudenti, will instruct parties to meet at the outset of the case and afterward to discuss the scope and parameters of privilege review. It also will strongly encourage using categorized designations for documents as opposed to itemized listings to help streamline the process.

Parties who resist the categorized approach may be subject to attorney fees upon a showing of good cause by the other side or a protective order from the judge.

Modeled after guidelines set forth in such jurisdictions as the Southern District of New York and Delaware Court of Chancery, the rule offers ‘a meaningful way for courts and parties to assess the assertion of privilege,’ said David H. Tennant, a partner at Nixon Peabody, who co-drafted the language with Jonathan Lupkin, of Rakower Lupkin. They are members of an advisory group charged with proposing changes to Commercial Division practice to offer a more efficient and cost-effective forum for litigants and their business clients. . . .

Changes and Trends in Paralegal Education.

21 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by in Education, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Paralegals/Legal Assistants

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Take Your Seats, by Sally A. Kane, J.D., Paralegal Today

 http://paralegaltoday.com/issue_archive/features/feature1_jf09.htm

A changing economic climate, emerging technologies and a global legal market have transformed the legal industry. In response to evolving market demands, paralegal educators and law firm managers are adapting school programs, continuing legal education courses and training policies to better prepare today’s paralegals for success in the workforce and in their careers.

‘Paralegal roles are expanding,’ said Charles Volkert, Esq., executive director of Robert Half Legal, a national legal staffing service based in  Menlo Park, Calif. ‘Law firms look for multiple skill sets and a wide variety of experience as they expand globally.’

What skills sets are hot in today’s paralegal market? Paralegal educators, managers and recruiters across the country agree that a combination of strong technology, writing and communication skills, and hands-on experience will help paralegals excel in the workplace. Other hot trends in paralegal education and CLE include distance learning and a greater demand for certain paralegal specialties. . . .

Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Think Fast—But Not Too Fast: Privilege Waived for Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disclosure, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/khbymml

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., No. 5:12-CV-289-KSF-REW, 2013 WL 7800409 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2013)

In this case, the court found that privilege was waived where First Technology Capital, Inc. (‘FTC’*), through counsel, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials.  The court’s determination that counsel’s efforts were unreasonable was based, in part, on the speed of the alleged page-by-page review (each document received, on average, only 9.84 seconds of review) and FTC’s failure to produce a privilege log, among other things. . . .

In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery

≈ Comments Off on In Discovery, Ask A Silly Question, You’ll Get A Silly Answer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Lessons From Drafting Overly Broad Requests, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., bowtielaw blog

http://tinyurl.com/pzykr25

Drafting discovery is an art. While painting in oils or pastels is certainly more colorful than drafting requests in Times New Roman or Ariel, both require thought. And like any masterpiece, drafting a request for production can have its challenges.

A Requesting Party demanded an opposing party produce ‘[a]ll email and text messages sent or received on Mayo email and text messaging accounts.’

The Magistrate Judge found the request to be overly broad. . . .

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. . . .

Don’t Offer An E-Database If You Can’t Afford It.

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Databases, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Metadata, Preservation, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Don’t Offer An E-Database If You Can’t Afford It.

Tags

, , , ,

Despite Alleged Budget Constraints, Government Ordered to Continue to Pay for Database to Avoid Prejudice to Criminal Defendants, Electronic Discovery Law, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/led86em

In this criminal case, the Government was ordered to continue to maintain a Relativity Database (the ‘Database’) utilized by the parties to review documents produced by the Government and to continue to provide Defendants with the access and support that the parties had previously negotiated, despite the depletion of funding for the Database which was accelerated by the Government’s voluntary actions. . . .

How Not To Do E-Discovery.

15 Tuesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on How Not To Do E-Discovery.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Fears and Loathing (and Pain) in Seattle: a Case Lesson in How NOT to Preserve and Produce Email – Part One, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team®

http://tinyurl.com/l8ujksu

If e-discovery is part of your life, you need to read this blog. Ralph Losey is not the only expert showcased here, but he is definitely one of the best. E-discovery is an area of law that is constantly evolving. If you do not work in it frequently, it is easy to get lost. Blogs such as these will help. -CCE

A recent case in Seattle provides a text-book example of how not to do e-discovery. It concludes with a sanctions order against the defendant, and the defendant’s law firm, Payne & Fears LLP. The law firm was fined $10,000, payable to the court, due to the conduct of two of its attorneys. The defendant, Corinthian Colleges, was fined another $25,000. Knickerbocker v Corinthian Colleges, Case No. C12-1142JLR, (WDWA, April 7, 2014). . . .

Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Technology, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ Comments Off on Learning E-Filing and E-Docketing the Hard Way.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

A Painful Lesson in the Pitfalls of E-Filing and E-Docketing, by Scott P. Stolley and Richard B. Phillips, Jr., Texas Appellate Watch

http://tinyurl.com/ma6head

As mandatory e-filing (and the accompanying switch to e-service, e-dockets, and e-notices) spreads across Texas, we need to adopt new standard practices to ensure that we fulfill our duties to our clients. An appeal pending in the Federal Circuit provides a cautionary tale that should not be ignored. . . .

If Your Copier Has A Hard Drive, Is Its Stored Data Susceptible to E-Discovery?

09 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Confidentiality, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Metadata, Native Format, Office Procedures, Preservation, Sanctions, Technology

≈ Comments Off on If Your Copier Has A Hard Drive, Is Its Stored Data Susceptible to E-Discovery?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Be Aware: Copying Machines Can Have Hard Drives And Store Copies – That’s Potential Out-Of-The-Box Discovery, by Adolph J. Levy, Out-Of-The-Box Lawyering Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mmpkd5h

Did you know that some copying machines have hard drives and store digital copies of the copies they have made? Or that the hard drives could even contain 25,000 copies that have been made? Copier + Hard Drive: A Dangerous Combination.

Lawyers are used to discovering e-mail, but now what about using discovery to find copies that a opposing party made over time? Wouldn’t you like to be at your opponent’s office and see the originals of all the copies that were being made?

Well, now, fortunately — or unfortunately — you might be able to. . . .