The UF Law E-Discovery Conference was a big success a couple of weeks ago in terms of educational content and several of the sessions also featured polls of the audience (for which participation was required to get CLE credit – clever!). With nearly 1,500 attendees for each session, that resulted in some interesting poll results from the UF Law conference! Yesterday, I covered about half the session poll results, here are the remaining session poll results!

With permission from Bill Hamilton, I am publishing the results here (thanks to Maribel for providing them to me!) and providing some comments about each session’s polls above each. Of the sessions with polls, some had as few as a single poll, others had as many as six. There were enough polls that I’m splitting them up over two posts and total number of respondents for each poll is shown in the title. Enjoy!

Judicial Panel Session, Day 1:

Six terrific polls here involving judicial involvement in discovery! Some highlights: 1) 70% of respondents think judges should be somewhat active to very active in resolving discovery disputes, 2) Just under half of respondents (48%) think the judge should get involved if the client is the problem during discovery, 3) More than two-thirds (69%) of respondents prefer in-person over remote depositions, 4) Only 40% of respondents have been involved in a case with a Special Master and 5) Only 22% of respondents think judges are very knowledgeable about technology, but 57% of respondents think they should be very knowledgeable about technology. Only 4% of respondents thinks judges don’t need to be very knowledgeable about technology (unless technology is central to the merits of the matter). In this case, the judge had to get into the technology to refute claims that she should recuse herself!  Here’s the session poll results from this session:

Power Searching Session, Day 2:

Two polls here regarding review – the first addresses whether respondents validate their review. The good news is that about two-thirds (66%) do indeed validate their review! The bad news is that over one in five (21%) don’t know what validation is. Oy! In the second poll, 74% of respondents still use manual linear review in some cases, 11% don’t know there’s any other type of review. Here’s the session poll results from this session:

Data Privacy Session, Day 2:

The four polls in this session may have been the most enlightening of any session! Let’s break them down! Highlights: 1) Nearly half (49%) of respondents had never heard of a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR)! Zoinks! Maybe this will help? 2) More than a third of respondents (35%) said no data privacy law has had the biggest impact on their organization’s planning and operations, only 16% were impacted the most by GDPR (which was behind the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014!), 3) The biggest concerns about a data breach were non-monetary – 40% of respondents said losing their data was the biggest concern and 36% said it was reputational damage to the organization, and 4) 56% of respondents would pay the ransom in a ransomware attack, but only 4% would pay it “in almost any situation”. Here’s the session poll results from this session:

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is a very verbose blog post! 😉 Hope you were enlightened by all the poll results as I was!

So, what do you think? Do any of these results jump out at you as surprising? 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.