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 of review. There are three
Continue Reading De-duplication: What is it and Why Should I Use it?
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 of the steps identified in
Continue Reading What is EDRM?
Cases Involving Emoticons As Evidence Are On the Rise
Approximately, one year ago, I authored a blog about emoticons finding their way into the courtroom as purported evidence of a crime or tort (Texter Beware: Emojis as Evidence). Although emoticons began appearing in court in 2004, their presence has risen exponentially. In fact, just last month, Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara Law School reported in the
Continue Reading Cases Involving Emoticons As Evidence Are On the Rise
A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4
This is the 4th and final blog in a multi-part blog discussing various critical requirements that can serve as the road map to allow a lawyer to fulfill his/her duty of technological competence. [Click here to read Part 1, here to read Part 2, and here to read Part 3].
You have assessed the discovery needs of your matter, implemented
Continue Reading A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 4
A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 3
This is Part 3 in a multi-part blog discussing various critical requirements that can serve as the road map to allow a lawyer to fulfill his/her duty of technological competence. [Click here to read Part 1 and here to read Part 2]..
After you have assessed the discovery needs and issues in a given matter, and you have implemented appropriate
Continue Reading A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part 3
A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part I
The role of electronically stored information (“ESI”) and new technologies has grown tremendously in recent years. This growth has a direct impact on discovery specifically, and the practice of law, generally. And so, the new practical reality is that attorneys need to be technologically literate and competent. This should come as no surprise to those who read my blog. Earlier
Continue Reading A Lawyer’s Obligation to be Technologically Competent – Part I
The Rule 26 Conference: Necessary Evil or Critical for Streamlined and Efficient Discovery?
Often viewed as a necessary evil, the Rule 26(f) conference can serve as an invaluable opportunity to meaningfully discuss discovery such that the process is streamlined and seeks to avoid unnecessary (and often costly) disputes. Generally speaking, Rule 26(f), among other things, sets the deadline for the conference as soon as practicable and at least 21 days before the scheduling
Continue Reading The Rule 26 Conference: Necessary Evil or Critical for Streamlined and Efficient Discovery?
Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint As Sanction for Doctored Emails
On August 1, 2018, Judge Beetlestone (E.D. Pa.) granted Defendants’ motion for sanctions based upon unequivocal evidence that Plaintiffs manipulated and fabricated emails material to the litigation. Although the Court imposed the drastic sanction of dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court provided a detailed and instructive analysis supporting its ultimate conclusion. The Court’s analysis, addressed below, can be read in full
Continue Reading Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint As Sanction for Doctored Emails
The Risks of Social Media in Litigation
It has become apparent that lawyers must keep informed of changes in the law, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. And, relevant technology is not limited to electronic dockets (i.e., NYSCEF, and ECF) and preserving text messages a client sends about his/her representation. Rather, relevant technology includes today’s world of social media including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and
Continue Reading The Risks of Social Media in Litigation
The Dangers of Counsel Not Being Active Participant in the Discovery Process
Angela Lawrence (“Lawrence”) was a plaintiff in a civil rights action that alleged officers of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) entered her home in August 2014 without a warrant, pushed her to the ground, damaged her property, and stole $1,000 in cash. In September 2016, Lawrence provided photographs to her attorney (“Leventhal”) that she claimed depicted the condition
Continue Reading The Dangers of Counsel Not Being Active Participant in the Discovery Process