Written By Nathaniel Byington
Although Technology-Assisted Review (“TAR”) has been discussed at length over the last 14 months, many folks are still just getting started with the technology. As a computational linguist with an eDiscovery background, I thought I would share my top five tips on getting the most out of technology-assisted review. Continue reading
Many January blog postings focus on the 2012 predictions. Rather than further opining
on what several brilliant writers (here, here, and here) have already discussed—I thought I would skip the predictions this year. I’m not sure that clairvoyance is my strongest skill anyway.
Instead, this blog will focus on what clients should demand from their service providers in 2012. Continue reading
Written by Chris Dahl
Simply put—to save money. Reusing attorney decisions and other work across cases can lead to huge cost savings for corporations. The three biggest cost savings involve leveraging privilege decisions, leveraging responsiveness decisions, and reusing production images. I will explain each in turn. Continue reading
Written by Beau Holt
Attorney client and work product privileges became much more complicated in the electronic age. Not only was there significantly more data to review to determine whether privilege existed, but there were also a plethora of new ways to communicate—emails, text, social media, etc. These “new” issues raised by the electronic age caused heartburn for many lawyers. Following adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which expanded the protection provided by claw-back provisions, many lawyers breathed a sigh of relief, thinking they had a safety net that would allow them to avoid waiver issues associated with production of electronic data. While it’s true that the claw-back protections, expanded in scope in Federal Rule of Evidence 502, afford greater protection against inadvertent waiver, there are other traps awaiting the “information age” attorneys. Continue reading
Written by Pankaj Verma
Edited by Debora Motyka Jones
What is Cloud Computing?
Technology has no boundaries, and the emerging market of cloud computing is proving it to be true. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines cloud computing as “a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.” These are the magic words for any company in this economy—you pay only for what you use. Cloud computing is not a new technology, but a new way of providing IT infrastructure to organizations as business demands them. Continue reading
Finally, a District Court case that answers the question we have all been asking “[h]ow many times can a litigant ignore his discovery obligations before his misconduct catches up with him?” Lee v. Max International, LLC, No. 10-4129 (10th Cir. May 3, 2011). In short, at least three. Continue reading
The hot topic at LegalTech this year was “predictive coding” or technology assisted review. But why would you use it? Well, it can save you a ton of money on review. Continue reading
Once you have chosen your vendor, it is very important to establish open lines of communication. Not only should you have a call with your vendor’s entire team at the start of the matter, but you should have constant communication as the assumptions and deadlines change. If you work together as a team, the process will go much more smoothly and both parties will be happier. Jane Gennarelli recently echoed this point in her blog post on Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers.
Although I advocated self-collection in my recent post about Facebook Self-Collections, I want to note that self-collections are usually not a good way to go. In fact, the e-Discovery Team recently posted a blog article about the pitfalls of self-collection. Ralph Losey pointed to a recent opinion out of the Eastern District of Texas, Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), where the Court entered sanctions for bad faith withholding of evidence against a party who engaged in self-collection.
As the use of social media increases, so does its relevance to litigation. We are now seeing more and more people wanting to collect data from social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Initially, a Facebook collection meant getting a user’s permission and sending a subpoena to Facebook. But now, Facebook has streamlined the process by allowing users to collect their own information. Continue reading