Related posts:

1. CompTIA expecting rise in ediscovery use
2. Litigation Support Vendors
3. Information Management and Ediscovery

Related posts:

1. Clearwell and Ediscovery Pilot Program
2. iClearwell is real
3. Ajilon-Fios partnership

The first development is that a judge has allowed a subpoena to be issued to Geohot’s webhost, revealing the IP addresses of anyone who has visited Geohot’s website (Geohot is the online pseudonym for George Hotz – I’m sure you can figure out it’s origins) since January 2009.   In addition, subpoenas have been issued to YouTube and Twitter for information relating to George Hotz on those sites as well.

The latest development is that now George Hotz’s Paypal records can also be accessed, as Sony will attempt to use this information to show that California has jurisdiction in this case, rather than New Jersey, where Hotz resides.

What do you think?  Is the magistrate judge in this case overstepping his bounds, or does Sony have a right to dig up all the dirt they can on this hacker?

Related posts:

1. Judge Issues Sanctions for Ediscovery Failure

Gabe Acevedo was covering LegalTech for the great Above the Law blog.  While that blog doesn’t usually focus specifically on ediscovery issues, this year they brought in an ediscovery pro to cover the event.  I’m not surprised that people like to tout the benefits of “the cloud” but back off when pressed for details.  There’s still the impression that the use of tech buzzwords will automatically translate to success in the legal field, which is obviously not the case.  In my opinion, there are still opportunities for the right technology team to come up with a great ediscovery product that is useful,  secure and “buzzword compliant.”

The other big thing this year is the emergence of predictive coding.  While this technology has been around for awhile, it’s finally matured enough to be intergrated into some ediscovery products.  I’ll have  a roundup of litigation support products that implement predictive coding in a future blog post.

Related posts:

1. Ediscovery Jobs coming in 2011
2. Electronic Document Review – How to Reduce Overall Cost
3. Ediscovery Outsourcing

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for litigation software, and you have to make some important decisions when selecting an appropriate platform.  First, how much data will you be receiving and in what format will it be in?  If the only responsive documents are some emails, what format will they be provided to you in?  Can you just open and review the files through a native application on your computer?  If so, great!  But if some responsive documents are part of a complex specialized software package (for example, AutoCAD files), will you be able to review them properly?  You may need a litigation support vendor to convert those files to TIFF for you.

Better yet, have those special files reviewed by an expert – converting documents to TIFF can eliminate the actual value of a file.  Think of what you use a spreadsheet for – you can have formulas in certain rows and columns, you can sort columns by any number of criteria, etc.  Now, if someone took away your computer and replaced it with a printout of that spreadsheet, try getting some work done!  That’s what happens when a heavy-handed solution is used where some precision is required.

Another thing to consider with your litigation support software is how many people will be using it to code?  Factor in the cost of actually training people on how to properly use the software.  Too may times we have had to deal with users who only bothered to learn enough to get by, but when a deadline comes up, they need to know how to perform complex searches, bates number documents, endorse documents, and get them to the court by 5:00 P.M.!  Often, after the deadline has passed, that same user will come back and say “boy if I had known what this software could do earlier, I wouldn’t have needed to rush.”

So with ediscovery software, there are many factors to consider.  Anyone who flat out tells you that XYZ platform is “the best” probably has limited experience with other platforms.  Each has its use and purpose, but of course, we all have our own preferences!

Related posts:

1. Litigation Support Vendors
2. Litigation Support Software
3. Ediscovery and Litigation Support

No related posts.

I wonder how the candidates are going to differentiate themselves from one another – experience is important, but so is the ability to use the right tools for the job.  Legal services and litigation support vendors will be able to leverage this ediscovery surge into more lucrative contracts that have dried up over the past couple of years.

If the rise in work for ediscovery professionals continues, this may also lead to some traction on ediscovery certification efforts.  Considering the relative size and projected growth of the industry, it’s as good a time as any to start some sort of standardization for professionals.  Right now there are many diverse skill sets that ediscovery professionals have, but in order to move upward (or even laterally) within the industry there needs to be some sort of quality control over the workforce.

Related posts:

1. 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Ediscovery Survey released
2. CompTIA expecting rise in ediscovery use
3. LegalTech New York 2011 Recap

I don’t think that documents that require special software to extract should be produced during discovery.  During the normal course of business, these documents were copied or scanned and should reside in other, more accessible places.  Of course, this all changes if it turns out that a party is acting in bad faith.

I would also not be surprised if, as one result of increased ediscovery productions, companies started looking toward “dumb” technology in order to better serve their needs.  Attorneys still communicate with experts over the phone because electronic correspondence is discoverable in some circumstances.  Similarly, companies might decide that the added features of these new fancy copiers aren’t worth the bother if they’re just creating more headache (and expense) for the legal team.

Related posts:

1. Digital Forensics and the Legal Community
2. Judge Issues Sanctions for Ediscovery Failure
3. LegalTech New York 2011 Recap

Quote:

In short, the district court (first the magistrate judge and as affirmed by the district court judge) held that spoliation sanctions for the failure to implement a litigation hold were not warranted. The Eighth Circuit affirmed using an abuse of discretion standard of review. In other words, did the lower court’s opinion deviate from applicable law in an arbitrary or unreasonable way. The Eighth Circuit held that the record failed to establish prejudice to the plaintiffs or an intentional destruction of evidence or withholding of evidence in an attempt to suppress the truth. For anyone keeping score on litigation hold decisions, this is very helpful to an organization that accidentally loses or destroys electronically stored evidence – with or without a legal hold in place.

Related posts:

1. Electronic Discovery and Legal Holds
2. SanDisk sanctioned for Ediscovery blunder
3. Judge Issues Sanctions for Ediscovery Failure

The first step is often to identify the key players in the pending litigation.  This is where you’re going to want to question key witnesses and construct an organizational chart of parties that may be involved.  With this data, you can better evaluate whether this litigation is going to be quick, or if you may need to dig in for a protracted battle.

At this stage, you now have enough information to issue litigation holds for key custodians and be able to determine the potential scope of ediscovery.  Server shares, mail accounts, document management software, and backup tapes should all be evaluated for litigation responsiveness.

There are further steps, of course, but at this point you should have a grasp of the amount of data that could potentially be involved in this litigation.  Additional steps will depend on the amount of data you have identified and collected, but you will likely want to load this into a document review platform (if the data set is small and is ready for attorney review) or into a tool with more robust features such as Clearwell or EMC’s Kazeon.

Early Case Assessment is an important tool for reducing overall cost and better preparing you for litigation.  The longer you ignore tools and processes like this, the faster you will fall behind the ediscovery curve.

Related posts:

1. Electronic Document Review – How to Reduce Overall Cost
2. Clearwell’s Top Ediscovery trends of 2010
3. E-discovery Trend: DIY Collection

I also noticed that there are a high number of respondents that believe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be pared down to limit the scope of electronic discovery in civil cases.  I have to generally agree, but I wonder what type of data should be off-limits for ediscovery?  If anything, I would like tape backups or other media that is not used during the normal course of business to be discoverable only if data was found to be intentionally or maliciously deleted.

Of course, I’m still somewhat surprised that more firms aren’t employing social media to their advantage, but then again, I wonder how much of an advantage can be really be had in this industry.  For example, the exposure/usage of a Facebook group is probably minimal for a law firm, but that’s no reason to avoid having a simple blog on your website.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see some ambitious junior associates willing to write a few paragraphs every month on interesting legal topics, and it offers a stage for impressing senior partners.

Related posts:

1. 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Ediscovery Survey released
2. Clearwell’s Top Ediscovery trends of 2010
3. Litigation Support Vendors

SanDisk was requested by opposing counsel to produce the hard disk images that were used by two former employees.  No problem, right?  SanDisk had already put away the laptops temporarily (in compliance with a legal hold), but decided they would like to use the laptops again, so they moved the former employees’ images to their servers.

Then, of course, they lost the data.

In the end, SanDisk was sanctioned not because they couldn’t find what they were looking for, and not because of the process they used to recover the data (they took it from a tape backup), but because they had not been forthcoming about what really happened to the data.  Because of this, plaintiffs endured a longer delay than was originally anticipated, hence the need for the ediscovery sanctions.

Related posts:

1. Judge Issues Sanctions for Ediscovery Failure

This information management focus comes from a perfect storm of problems that companies are facing right now.  Regulatory compliance is at the forefront of most technology-related decisions, but other factors play a role in deciding how to get a grip on how information flows within an organization.

One important aspect that any information management system must account for is the ability to create a legal hold.  When an employee or company may the subject of litigation, it is important that documents are properly preserved to avoid evidence spoliation.  Having a single appliance that can defensibly handle this task would be of great benefit to any company.  Most solutions we are seeing deployed now are much more patchwork, as companies also worry about things like DLP (data loss prevention) and the security of proprietary information.

Related posts:

1. CompTIA expecting rise in ediscovery use
2. Ediscovery Cloud Technologies
3. Eighth Circuit Court Skips Opportunity to Enforce Legal Holds

First, let’s start with market size: it appears that the overall ediscovery market grew in 2009, up 10% from 2008.  This is modest growth in good years, but in these lean times it shows that law firms have found value and are actually saving money by using ediscovery services.  Expect to see beat-the-market growth from the vendors who do the best job of culling document sets down, leading to less attorney document review work.

However, another recent trend may be pushing documents out of the hands of ediscovery vendors.  Targeted collection and preservation has made some of these document culling tools less useful, as attorneys gain experience in requesting specific documents during litigation.  The usefulness of the blanket “all documents relating to XYZ” request is outweighed by the cost of culling those documents down and then reviewing them.  This will be especially true as the data deluge continues, with ediscovery document sources becoming more numerous with no end in sight.

This is good news for many law firms engaged in litigation.  Instead of paying contract attorneys to review large swaths of varied documents, you can have those lawyers (and your experts) focus on a smaller set of documents, reducing cost.

Next post (later this week!) we’ll include some information on how the 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey relates to information management, and we’ll discuss a few other trends that we expect to continue in 2010 in the ediscovery market.

Related posts:

1. Fulbright and Jaworski release 7th Annual Litigation Trends Survey
2. Clearwell’s Top Ediscovery trends of 2010
3. Ediscovery Jobs coming in 2011

Clearwell is taking advantage of the law firms who have slowly been migrating to the iPhone as their preferred mobile platform.  While the once-ubiquitous Blackberry continues to be a major player for many reasons (IT support and familiarity being important, not to mention a keyboard with tactile response), development and visibility for iPhone apps remains a distinct advantage for Apple.

Time will tell if this means that Clearwell is likely to develop for that other important mobile OS, Android.  I think Android has a bright future, but the full computing power of the OS has yet to be harnessed in the corporate world.

This new app is also a great marketing tool for Clearwell – it shows that they are responsive to the market, and makes Clearwell data easy to manipulate, display, and ultimately show off to clients.  CW’s web interface looks nice and everything, but this gives a legitimate reason to show off your new iPad!

No related posts.

AccessData has typically been more focused on the data collection side of the EDRM model.  Their core business is focused on computer forensics and cyber security, but this acquisition allows them to expand a bit more into the ediscovery realm.  It will be interesting to see how they integrate their Forensic Toolkit (FTK) and incident response software into CT Summation’s review and processing platforms.

Related posts:

1. E-discovery Trend: DIY Collection
2. Ajilon-Fios partnership
3. Clearwell’s Top Ediscovery trends of 2010

This is a bit of a new challenge – while most companies think about the challenge of culling large data sets (email archives, for example), a new emphasis will also need to be placed on the collection of small amounts of data from disperate and uncontrollable environments.  Company XYZ may be able to cull and produce responsive documents within their possession, but who is responsible for the collection of relevant information that may be posted to Facebook?  What if that information is set to “private” – is it discoverable, and how do you go about collecting it?

Just some ediscovery food for thought…

Related posts:

1. Information Management and Ediscovery
2. 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Ediscovery Survey released
3. Ediscovery Cloud Technologies

No related posts.

Many companies are what I call “semi-prepared” for ediscovery work – the tools may be in place but they’ve never all been under the same ediscovery umbrella.  For example, informal internal investigations may be launched if an employee is suspected of embezzlement or theft of IP, but that may result only in the termination of the employee and not in any criminal charges (depending on the severity of the crime, of course).  IT workers may know how to capture packets across the network, but may not follow a certain set of steps that make the process transparent and able to hold up in court.

CompTIA is in a very good position to create and manage an eDiscovery certification shortly.  They released a paper called “Ediscovery Trends and Practices” at the end of 2009, which at the least demonstrates that they recognize the eDiscovery market as a growing market worth paying attention to.  I’d be curious as to see what the requirements are if CompTIA is going to offer a certification – there are quite a few separate and important tasks that could all be classified as ediscovery (data collection, document review, computer forensics, etc.), but I would hope it wouldn’t just be a generic “Ediscovery project manager” type of cert.  I’d personally want the cert to be a bit more technical and to demonstrate a thorough understanding of all necessary steps.

Of course, this is all under the assumption that CompTIA is going to offer Ediscovery certification, and they may never even do that – just speculation on my part!

Related posts:

1. Information Management and Ediscovery
2. Ediscovery Jobs coming in 2011
3. 2010 Socha-Gelbmann Ediscovery Survey released

After all potentially responsive documents are preserved, then any documents that are not relevant to the litigation may be discarded.  This is called culling, and can be done with a number of litigation support software packages.  Most of these document review platforms come with some kind of search functionality, so you can reduce the number of documents quickly by only find docs authored by a certain person, or within a certain date range.

Finally, until the litigation has been resolved, the litigation hold is ongoing, so any documents that are produced that relate to or reference the litigation may be discoverable.  In addition, if any data is found to have been deleted or otherwise altered, sanctions may be imposed on legal counsel for a failure to properly issue a legal hold.

Related posts:

1. Eighth Circuit Court Skips Opportunity to Enforce Legal Holds
2. E-discovery Trend: DIY Collection
3. Ediscovery software to reduce legal costs