Discovery Resources

The New Jersey Supreme Court held on March 30, 2010 that an employee could “reasonably expect that e-mail communications with her attorney through her personal account would remain private, and that sending and receiving them via a company laptop did not eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected them.” Read more at E-Lessons Learned.

By Joe Aakre, Product Manager, Fios, Inc.

The following are some hints and tips that I am borrowing from “Chapter 8: Data Review: Fast and Thorough Methods” of Mary Mack’s book, A Process of Illumination: The Practical Guide to Electronic Discovery. This chapter offers practical advice that can help you and your legal team prepare for and achieve optimal results (and lowered costs) in your e-discovery reviews.

During the discovery phase of large or complex cases, there can be significant time and resource burdens associated with document review. Reviewing printed versions of electronic materials can be a time-consuming process. It is also subject to risks of omission due to “reviewer’s fatigue,” resulting continue…

By Laura Webster, Solution Design Architect, Fios, Inc.

Data processing for e-discovery requires expertise in various technologies. Electronically stored information (ESI) populations generally contain large volumes of disparate file types. For an e-discovery project to be successful, this data must be processed and aggregated quickly and reliably.

Your e-discovery partner should be able to help you:

• Fully inventory and uniquely identify each file in the data population for file accountability.
• Collaborate with the response team to address security and encryption methods used in email, container and other file types to ensure all appropriate decryption methods are attempted.
• Extract file content and metadata from the files, such as e-mail routing data, file property data continue…

The new decade has begun with conflicting and complementary opinions from Judge Rosenthal of Texas and Judge Scheindlin of New York. These opinions, penned by United States District Court judges, will frame the behavior and motion practice around federal e-discovery sanctions into the near future.

Before the ink was dry on Judge Scheindlin’s groundbreaking “no written legal hold = gross negligence” opinion in The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al., 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order), subtitled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later,” Judge Rosenthal, in Rimkus v. Cammarata, 07-cv-00405 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2010) drew careful lines continue…

In Her Honor’s latest eDiscovery-related opinion, Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, __ F. Supp. 2d __ (S.D.N.Y. 2010), Judge Scheindlin provides us all with a much needed reminder that sloppy (i.e., negligent or grossly negligent) document preservation and production will expose parties (and their lawyers) to the court’s arsenal of sanctions. Fernando M. Pinguelo and Frank Gonnello, Jr. from e-Lessons Learned note that “While litigants are not required to execute document productions with absolute precision, at a minimum they must act diligently and search thoroughly at the time they reasonably anticipate litigation.” Read full article here.