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
“Self-collection” refers to the situation in which the custodians of information potentially relevant to a legal proceeding undertake to identify and collect that information on their own and provide the collected content to counsel.
The typical self-collection situation involves some limited instruction or oversight from counsel (in-house or outside). For example, outside counsel issues a
In In Re State Farm Lloyds, (Texas Supreme Court [May 26, 2017] 2017 WL 2323099), the Supreme Court of Texas elaborated on the standard applied to evaluate and resolve production disputes. Specifically, the Court opined (perhaps not surprisingly) that of “the guiding principles informing the exercise of discretion over electronic-discovery disputes, proportionality is the