De-duplication (“de-duping”) is the process of comparing electronic records based on their content and characteristics and removing duplicate records from the data set so that only one instance of an electronic record is produced when there two or more identical copies. De-duplicating a data set is a smart way to reduce volume and increase efficiencies
What is EDRM?
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) is a framework that outlines standards for the recovery and discovery of digital data. An EDRM diagram created by Duke Law (https://www.edrm.net/frameworks-and-standards/edrm-model/) represents a conceptual view of the e-discovery process, which is not a linear process, necessarily. In fact, you may engage in some, but not all
The New Rules of Federal Evidence Have Arrived
Earlier this year, I wrote about the then-proposed changes to the Federal Rules, and how those changes (if implemented), could impact electronic discovery. (February 15, 2017 blog) Well, the time has come — effective December 1, 2017, the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 “Evidence That is Self Authenticating” went live.
As
Client’s Bad Behavior Imputed to Counsel – Both Get Sanctioned
In Arrowhead Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126545 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016), District Judge Katherine Polk Failla imposed significant sanctions upon both the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and the lawyer for defendant Seven Arts Entertainment Inc. (“SAE”).
Background
Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. (“Arrowhead”) sued SAE in 2014
Counsel’s Failure to be Meaningfully Involved with Client’s Discovery Collection Costs Client One Half Million Dollars in Discovery Sanctions
On October 4, 2016, District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an opinion every federal court practitioner should read (Rodman v Safeway, Inc., [11-cv-03003] [N.D. Ca.] [JST]). The decision serves as an important reminder that counsel has an obligation to assist their client when identifying and collecting electronic documents responsive to discovery demands. Indeed, it
The Southern District of New York Rules that It Cannot Force a Responding Party To Use Technology Assisted Review When Searching for Documents
In Hyles v. New York City et. al., (Case No. 10-3119, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100390 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016], the plaintiff, an African-American female employed by the City of New York, was demoted. Specifically, she was replaced by a white male and demoted to a different position with a lesser salary. Ultimately, plaintiff
Who Exactly Qualifies as the Prevailing Party Entitled to Costs in a Mixed Judgment Case? And What Exactly Are Recoverable Production Costs?
Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC, v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, 2015 WL 5719123, (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2015)
In this patent infringement case, M-Tel contested a prior ruling by the District Court, which held that Samsung had not infringed upon patents owned by M-Tel. M-Tel claimed that Samsung was not the prevailing party as both
Will New York Follow California’s Lead?
Earlier this summer, the California State Bar formally addressed the ethical obligations of counsel to be competent in matters of e-discovery and specifically established standards for counsel practicing in California. (Formal Opinion No. 2015-193). The Bar stated, “[e]lectronic document creation and/or storage, and electronic communications, have become commonplace in modern life…attorneys who handle
The Importance of a Cooperative Discovery Process
In a previous post we discussed generally the idea of a cooperative discovery process and highlighted how the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules embrace this principal (see, e.g., proposed amendments to Federal Rule Civil Procedure [“FRCP”] 1). Here, we discuss how the concept of a cooperative discovery process– even apart from the specific
SCOTUS Endorses New FRCP
As those of you reading this well know, many studies and decisions show continued dissatisfaction with the discovery process. Remedies to this dissatisfaction that have gained traction are the ideas of cooperation, proportionality and reasonableness in the discovery process – the very themes that lay at the heart of the proposed amendments to the Federal