Topics
- Privacy
- Social Media
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- E-Discovery Case Law
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Digital copier hard drive security
- Native Format of Documents
- Cloud Computing
- Technology
- Zubulake
- Sanctions
- Email Retention
- Sedona Conference
- Rule 34
- Rule 26
- Rule 1
- Federal Rule
- Cooperation Proclamation
- Risk Assessment
- Electronic Data Discovery
- EDD Processing
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- TREC Legal Track
- Litigation
- ESI
- E-Discovery
- Outsourcing
- Document Review
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
- Always Have A Plan
- Your E-Discovery GPS: Are You on the Right Track?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Oh the stories a copier can tell!
- Does Your Law Firm Follow ESI Best Practices
- What do you think?
- Reserve Your Rights: Always Ask for Native
- Recent Court Ruling Could Impact Who Pays the Cost of Producing Electronic Discovery
- Got Your Head Up In the Clouds? Additional Concerns Over Cloud Computing
Other KMK Blogs
Your E-Discovery GPS: Are You on the Right Track?
A question I am sometimes asked, and one which never fails to trigger an immediate onset of nervous ticks and twitches, is the question of what general direction most jurisdictions are moving in the majority of their important e-discovery decisions.
Got Your Head Up In the Clouds? Additional Concerns Over Cloud Computing
In her January 11, 2010 post about Cloud Computing, Chris Meer exposed three important considerations when evaluating whether or not to manage critical e-discovery data in the Cloud: 1) the level and quality of your Cloud service provider’s Internet security model; 2) the ability to access your e-discovery data and documents on a 24/7 basis if needed; and 3) the subsequent finely crafted contractual and working relationship with your Cloud service provider that is absolutely required in order to facilitate that access.
Planning to Produce?
While it seems most of us agree and follow amended Rule 34(b)’s form of production requirement that both parties produce ESI in the form or forms ordinarily maintained or those that are reasonably useable, an often overlooked Advisory Committee Note seems to still wreck havoc in many, often large and expensive ESI productions, causing otherwise unnecessary additional time and expense to clients and their law firms along the way: the burden of the producing party to ‘announce its intention to produce in a particular format’, such as .tiff images or a litigation database load file format, such as Summation, Concordance, or IPRO.
Magic or Science: You Be the Judge
In-House EDD Processing: A Risky Business for Law Firms
In the wake of continued colossal e-discovery volume and associated costs, several highly respected law firms have seen fit to implement their own in-house EDD processing shops in an effort to control and reduce one of the highest e-discovery pain points for clients.