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
- 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
Oh the stories a copier can tell!
It seems that most every copy machine manufactured since 2002 contains and uses hard disk drives. Better yet, most all of these copiers are now digital MFPs (MultiFunction Products) that scan, email, fax ,and copy. As you’ll see in the CBS report, the device has to store a copy of the document being printed or imaged on that hard drive in order to do its work. Worse, those images can be retrieved, in many cases, just as files on a computer hard drive can be retrieved.
Does Your Law Firm Follow ESI Best Practices
Over the years the overwhelming volume of electronically stored information (ESI) continues to grow.
Recent Court Ruling Could Impact Who Pays the Cost of Producing Electronic Discovery
Traditionally, while a responding party must pay the costs of producing discovery, the cost of duplicating or photocopying documents is not included in this assessment. However, the advent of electronic discovery largely obviated the requesting party’s fiscal burden. CBT Flint Partners v. Return Path, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121188 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2009) is a novel attempt to reinstitute the sense of restraint that precludes “overly broad discovery requests that required the production of 1.4 million electronic documents and 6 versions of source code.” Id. at *10.
Getting the Geeks to Reboot
As the CIO of our firm (I prefer “Head Geek”, thank you very much) I see the time, effort, and money that is being spent on E-Discovery issues and wonder where this is all really going.