A prior post (Keyword Searching – What is it? And How Do I Do It (Well)?) offered some tips for crafting effective search terms for use in the e-discovery process. Although those tips still hold true, today’s blog offers ways to utilize an ESI protocol to promote a more seamless electronic search process.*
An ESI protocol is
Continue Reading Cheat Sheet for Effective Search Terms
My February 17th blog, “Judges Make the Case for TAR” discussed the widespread acceptance by federal courts of technology assisted review (“TAR”), which is acknowledged as cost effective, efficient, and likely superior to the tried and true keyword searching methodology. Continuing with the theme of TAR, the District Court of New Jersey recently addressed the critical importance of
Continue Reading Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget
As the pandemic continues and businesses adapt to the realities of virtual workforces, the “Zoom-Bombing” pranks housemates played on one another are a thing of the past.* Rather, we now must confront the discovery implications this virtual shift presents. For example, the increased use of virtual platforms, replete with recording features, may expose a litigant to discovery obligations beyond
Continue Reading Is Your Zoom-Bombed Meeting Discoverable?
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a prevailing party may have a right to recover certain costs associated with the litigation. Many prevailing parties seek to recoup costs attendant to e-discovery, given the expense associated with collecting, processing and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”). However, most federal courts confronting the issue have determined that e-discovery costs are recoverable only in
Continue Reading The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920
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 messages on approximately 100 company-owned
Continue Reading Federal Court Denies Request for Wholesale Disclosure of Text Messages
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 of e-discovery and digital information
Continue Reading The Foreign Language of E-Discovery
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 metadata is an integral part
Continue Reading Much Ado About Metadata?
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 and legal departments who seek
Continue Reading What Should Lawyers Look for in an E-Discovery Vendor?
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 and produced for use as
Continue Reading What Is E-Discovery?
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 the plaintiff and defendant won