Having done numerous webinars over the past several years, I’ve certainly noticed which topic consistently tends to attract the most interest – webinars about eDiscovery, cybersecurity and data privacy case law opinions and rulings. That’s not surprising, since legal and legal tech professionals are very interested in what courts expect regarding best practices for eDiscovery and the rights and responsibilities of parties in litigation. So, here’s a webinar of case law covered on this blog coming up in less than two weeks. But, it’s not just one case law webinar – it’s the start of a monthly series of them, thanks to a new partnership with EDRM!
On Wednesday, July 22nd, EDRM will host the webcast Important eDiscovery Case Law Decisions for July 2020 at 1:00pm ET (12:00pm CT, 10:00am PT). In this webinar, you’ll learn about key cases related to potential sanctions for spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI), as well as key cases related to data privacy and rights of litigants in civil and criminal cases. To register for the webinar, click on the link above, then scroll down to the list of webinars and click the “Upcoming” tab, then scroll down within that tab to find this webinar and click to register for it. Topics to be addressed include:
- How GDPR can affect your personal social media posts
- Fourth Amendment protection of mobile device examination by law enforcement
- GDPR protection for litigants in responding to discovery requests
- Discretion of courts to impose sanctions for spoliation of ESI
- Whether form of production and spoliation sanctions can interrelate
- How a court order can impact imposition of spoliation sanctions
I will be participating, along with my good friends Tom O’Connor (Director of the Gulf Legal Technology Center) and Mary Mack (CEO and Chief Legal Technologist of EDRM). It’s the “Tom and Doug” show meets “Drinks with Doug and Mary”! Except we won’t be drinking. Or will we? 😉
Obviously, I’m kidding – we won’t be as these are serious cases and issues to discuss (though we’ll keep the discussion fun and lively as always!). Hope you can join us!
Now, if I had just one webinar to talk about, that would be news enough. But, that’s not all. Earlier today, EDRM and eDiscovery Today announced a new partnership – to present a case law webinar monthly! That’s right – every month (or as close to it as we can come from a scheduling planning standpoint), we will be presenting a webinar of key case law decisions covered by eDiscovery Today and experts will be discussing those cases and what they could mean to you and your own legal and eDiscovery practices!
Unlike the case law webinars I’ve conducted in the past where we’ve been very ambitious in covering 15-20 cases, these webinars (for the most part) will focus on a handful of cases each month (typically, no more than four to six). This will give us a chance to get more in-depth into the discussion of those cases, their significance and how they may relate to other cases we’ve seen. Should be informative and a lot of fun each month!
I’m very grateful to Mary Mack, Kaylee Walstad and EDRM for agreeing to partner and for hosting these monthly case law webinars. Rest assured, you’ll hear about each of them here as they are scheduled so you can hopefully not miss any of them! Again, here’s a link to the first one on July 22nd, look above for instructions on how to register. See you there!
So, what do you think? Are you interested in what courts have to say regarding data privacy and discovery sanctions? If so, consider attending the webinar! And, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.