A recent federal district court decision, Lawson et al. v Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., US Dist Ct, MD Pa, 1:17-CV-1266, Carlson, J., 2019, reminds litigants of the need to tailor discovery requests for electronically stored information (“ESI”).
Before the Court was plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants’ production of “all” text
Have you ever been involved in a meet and confer regarding electronically stored information and felt your adversary was speaking a foreign language? Is active machine learning an unfamiliar concept to you? Is BYOD an acronym for who-knows-what?
If you answered yes to any of the above, or if you lack fluency in the language
Anyone reading this blog has likely heard about metadata and its potential role in a litigation (See, “Never Agree to Do Something Your Client Cannot Do;” “The Perils of Self-Collection;” and “A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4”). But we must remember that if
Electronically stored information (“ESI”) is ubiquitous and most people and companies are utilizing paperless documents in some form (i.e., e-mails, text messages, IMs). The many forms of ESI coupled with the introduction of varying data sources such as smartphones, cloud storage, iPads, and tablets, has dramatically expanded the available potential sources of discovery in a
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in e-discovery vendors. While having more vendor options to choose from may seem like a good thing, the surge in vendors can make it difficult to differentiate among them, and to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. It is therefore critical that law firms
I am often asked by clients and subscribers to the blog, What is E-discovery? And so, this week’s post is intended to respond to that question.
E-discovery is the abbreviated term for electronic discovery and refers to the process in which electronic data (as compared to paper or object information) is sought, located, secured, reviewed
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
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
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
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”).
Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. (“Arrowhead”) sued SAE in 2014