Blog

The New IGRM Isn’t Ready for Prime Time Just Yet, But That’s OK: eDiscovery Best Practices

This week’s post for IPRO’s blog is about the new IGRM, aka Information Governance Reference Model. The new version looks great (as evidenced by the graphic above) and will go into effect soon, just not as quickly as expected when I covered it back in June. And that’s OK, because it means people have indicated they are invested in the new IGRM model – and in information governance in general.

by Doug Austin

Egregious Track Record Aside, Court Denies Sanctions Request Against Plaintiffs: eDiscovery Case Law

In Kalra v. Adler Pollock & Sheehan, No. 3:18-CV-00260 (KAD) (D. Conn. Nov. 5, 2021), Connecticut Kari A. Dooley, despite citing “egregious course of conduct by the Plaintiffs”, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint as a sanction for Plaintiffs’ continued failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders and also denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for the purportedly frivolous motion to dismiss.

by Doug Austin

Crafting eDiscovery Requests with “Reasonable Particularity” is the Latest Target for The Sedona Conference: eDiscovery Best Practices

Been meaning to cover this for over a week. The Sedona Conference® (TSC) and its Working Group 1 on Electronic Document Retention and Production (WG1) has announced that The Sedona Conference Primer on Crafting eDiscovery Requests with “Reasonable Particularity” (“Primer”) has been published for public comment.

by Doug Austin

The Winter 2022 eDiscovery Pricing Survey is Here!: eDiscovery Trends

I know, it’s not even Winter yet, but Rob Robinson is a man ahead of his time! It’s time for another great survey from Rob and his terrific Complex Discovery blog!  This time it’s his semi-annual eDiscovery Pricing Survey, which is designed to provide insight into eDiscovery pricing through the lens of 12 specific questions answered by legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem.  Here is what’s covered in the Winter 2022 eDiscovery Pricing Survey Results.

by Doug Austin

Random Sample Size Needs to Be One Million Reports, Court Says: eDiscovery Case Law

In Healy v. Milliman, Inc., Washington District Judge John C. Coughenor granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents responsive to a specific Request for Production (“RFP”), finding that the information requested was responsive, but unduly burdensome and not proportional to the plaintiff’s pre-certification needs. So, Judge Coughenor endorsed the sampling approach suggested by the defendant in its supplemental briefing but ordered a random sample size of one million documents instead of the 100,000 that the defendant proposed.

by Doug Austin

Here’s a Webcast to Help You Understand Governance, Privacy and Exposure: eDiscovery Webcasts

Organizations can get more value from information assets now due to technology and data mining. However, the rewards of data value must be considered with the risk of a network compromise and the related data privacy and cybersecurity obligations imposed by legal, regulatory, and business retention requirements. Here’s a webcast from HaystackID which will help you understand considerations associated with Governance, Privacy and Exposure as they pertain to your organization!

by Doug Austin

Are Law Firms Providing Paralegals With the eDiscovery Training They Need to Fill Talent Gaps?: eDiscovery Trends

I didn’t get a chance to cover this topic before the holiday, but certainly want to do so now. As I mentioned in this post, “people who need people…are the luckiest people…in the world”. But the law firms who need paralegals to step up to fill eDiscovery roles in a tight job market may be missing a huge opportunity to provide, or at least pay for, the eDiscovery training they need to excel in those roles.

by Doug Austin

Discovery Intelligence is an Intelligent Approach to Discovery of ESI: eDiscovery Best Practices

That title might seem like I’m Captain Obvious, but it’s true. There’s nothing “artificial” about this approach to next-generation discovery! HaystackID® has defined an approach to discovery intelligence that synergistically harnesses the potential of artificial intelligence, the precision of data science, the power of machine learning, and the practicality of expertly trained and managed reviewers.

by Doug Austin

Six Considerations for Selecting an Expert Witness: eDiscovery Best Practices

In the last article I covered from Forensic Discovery, they discussed the Federal Rule that governs the use of expert witnesses in Federal cases and discussed a couple of examples of where the use of an expert witness was instrumental in a case (including one of their own examples available here). Their most recent article discusses six considerations for selecting an expert witness.

by Doug Austin

Ligl Announces Educational Partnership with eDiscovery Today

AUSTIN and HOUSTON, TX, November 18, 2021 – Ligl, a global provider of digital evidence lifecycle orchestration software today, is pleased to announce an Educational Partnership with Doug Austin’s eDiscovery Today blog, the only daily blog for electronic discovery, information governance, cybersecurity and data privacy trends, best practices and case law.

by Doug Austin

Can I Get a Witness? Maybe You Should Ask That More Often: eDiscovery Best Practices

The use of expert witnesses to help juries understand complex facts of the case is common, and an expert’s testimony can make or break your case. When it comes to eDiscovery and digital forensics best practices and expert witnesses, this recent article from Forensic Discovery discusses why you may want to consider asking the question “Can I get a witness?” more often.

by Doug Austin

Judge Says No Pinch-to-Zoom of Images Without Expert Testimony: eDiscovery Trends

I’m not a political guy and this is not a political post. It’s a post about technical competence of lawyers and judges that relates to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial currently underway. In that trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled last week that prosecutors would have to introduce an expert to prove that images taken from a drone were not distorted if they used the pinch-to-zoom function on an iPad to make them easier to see.

by Doug Austin

Court Rules on Motions Related to Purportedly Privileged Documents: eDiscovery Case Law

In Maxus Liquidating Trust v. YPF, S.A., Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi ruled on cross motions requesting the production of purportedly privileged documents, granting Maxus Liquidating Trust (the Trust)’s motion and ordering the YPF defendants to produce all documents according to specific categorical privilege logs, while ordering Maxus to produce privileged documents that were shared with members of the Maxus Board of Directors, but denying the YPF Defendants’ request for production of the SIC Investigation Documents.

by Doug Austin

There Are a Lot of Ways That Data Privacy is Driving Changes to eDiscovery and Litigation: Data Privacy Trends

In their last article, Compliance discussed the recent data privacy legislation in Europe and the US. That recent data privacy legislation has made a significant impact on workflows that support eDiscovery and litigation, as well as other use cases. It’s even creating brand new workflows that didn’t previously exist to support requests from individual data subjects!

by Doug Austin

Court Rejects Both Parties’ Proposals for Privilege Protection, Adopts its Own: eDiscovery Case Law

In U.S. v. Vepuri, Pennsylvania District Judge Harvey Bartle III denied the government’s motion for an order to establish a procedure for privilege protection materials that have been seized and defendant KVK-Tech, Inc.’s Cross-Motion for Return of Records and to Enjoin the Government from Reviewing Privileged Documents, adopting its own procedure that “will take into account the interests of the Government and safeguard the rights of the defendant”.

by Doug Austin

Curiosity Killed the Cat (Lawyer): Legal Technology Best Practices

Remember the “cat lawyer” Rod Ponton?  How could we forget his Zoom appearance in a court in Presidio County, Texas when he was unable to figure out how to turn off the cat filter on his Zoom call during a hearing on Tuesday in Texas’ 394th Judicial District Court as he declared to Judge Roy Ferguson, who presided over the case: “I’m here live. I’m not a cat.”  Perhaps a bit of technology curiosity beforehand would have killed the cat (lawyer) in Mr. Ponton!

by Doug Austin

Court Grants Defendants’ Motion to Compel PIN on Plaintiff’s Mobile Device: eDiscovery Case Law

In Handley v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Georgia District Judge Willie L. Sands granted the defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Cellular Phone Information, specifically the correct PIN to unlock her mobile device, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the motion to compel was untimely, ruling that he “cannot find that Defendants failed to attempt to confer in good faith” and that the plaintiff’s previous attempts to provide the correct PIN illustrates “that the motion to compel has merit.”

by Doug Austin

A Forensics Specialist Thinks About Mobile Device Forensics as a “Goldmine”: eDiscovery Best Practices

Mobile devices have become vital to discovery efforts and just about any case involves ESI from mobile devices these days.  So, how does a forensics specialist address mobile device forensics?  This blog post from Avansic shows that he or she thinks of it like the prospectors of the old west – as a “goldmine” of useful information!

by Doug Austin

Court Rejects Defendant’s Relevancy Objections in Approving Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel: eDiscovery Case Law

In Berry v. Town of Front Royal, Virginia, Virginia Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel, rejecting the defendant’s challenge of the relevance of the requested information by noting (among other things) that the defendant’s HR director testified that she investigated a dozen allegations of harassment, which refuted the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s harassment claim was the only harassment charge covered by the plaintiff’s requests.

by Doug Austin

Scoring Preserve-in-Place vs. Collect-to-Preserve for Slack Legal Holds: eDiscovery Best Practices

Brad Harris of Hanzo just posted an interesting and entertaining topic regarding Slack legal holds, where he did a comparison “head-to-head match” between collect to preserve (CTP) and preserve in place (PIP), scoring the battle in the way judges score a heavyweight boxing match! And here is the link to a terrific webinar you may have missed.

by Doug Austin

Loading…

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.