Discovery Resources

It is finally here – a way to auto-redact in Relativity. Fios has launched Redaction Assistant, an exciting new product that gives you the ability to quickly and efficiently identify and automatically redact repeated and patterned data such as Social Security numbers, customer account numbers, dates and names – all within Relativity.

Redactions are extremely time consuming, fraught with human error, costly and potentially risky for law firms and corporation alike. Certain personal information requires high levels of protection. Missed Social Security numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, financial account numbers or birth dates can all result in sanctions. Fios Redaction Assistant (FRA) allows you to achieve unprecedented levels of consistency, efficiencycontinue…

kCura constantly strives to advance product performance and frequently calls upon their own customers for input on development initiatives. Vendor-specific user groups are a valuable resource in legal technology product improvement efforts. The International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) is a good example. ILTA was not a formal professional organization 34 years ago, but was simply a loose-knit group of product users who found value in sharing ideas to help their software vendor make improvements. Now it has evolved into an indispensable resource for the entire legal technology community.

Similarly, kCura, by providing an open forum where users can make suggestions on ways to enhance and improve Relativity – its industry-leadingcontinue…

Tom Allman’s recently updated paper, E-Discovery in Federal and State Courts, acquaints readers with many of the impacts of the 2006 Federal Amendments, the influence of local initiatives and “best practices” guidance on e-discovery and the status of rulemaking today. The paper also includes links to helpful references and resources including cases, advisory committee materials and proposed rules. The paper’s appendix contains state-by-state summaries.  The full paper, plus appendix, is available here.

A major theme of this year’s Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat focused on the tensions between the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation on the one hand and the work product doctrine on the other. In the new age of discovery, with few documents or communications in hard copy any longer, is opposing counsel now entitled to information about the data you have collected or prepared in anticipation of litigation and where it resides – even if much of that data turns out not to be responsive? And does this include information about data that has been identified but not actually collected? The conference debate was spirited and tended toward the extremes. Some hadcontinue…

Using early case assessment (ECA) to prepare for the 26(f) “meet and confer” helps practitioners address the issues and challenges around preserving discoverable data and aids development of a “discovery plan” which establishes the foundation for effective discovery. The more you know early on about the location and volume of your electronically stored information (ESI) and the client’s preferences regarding document review, the better prepared you will be to conduct a successful 26(f) conference and face the challenges that surround the collection of ESI.

“Meet and Confer” Pitfalls

The meet and confer continues to be a challenge for many attorneys. An unsuccessful meet and confer can damage an attorney’s credibilitycontinue…

by Kelly Twigger, Esq., Principal, ESI Attorneys

Identifying many more custodians for a matter than are truly necessary is a challenge I am constantly addressing with clients. Interestingly, I usually see clients go one way or the other – either identifying entire departments for a legal hold (instead of the four to five individuals who touched a project), or only one or two people (vs. all those necessary) – rather than conducting interviews and truly understanding who really should be a custodian.

Why does having the true list of custodians matter from the start? Two reasons — reducing risk and saving money.

Early Witness Interviews: Do the Legwork

So, howcontinue…

Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Time: 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT (60 minutes)

Join Fios for an enlightening session on using early case assessment (ECA) to prepare for 26(f) conferences. Aaron Crews, e-Discovery Counsel at Littler, Jessica Ross, e-Discovery Services Attorney at Latham & Watkins, and other industry experts will share insights and discuss strategic approaches for using ECA tools to evaluate your client’s data before your “meet and confer” session.

During this webcast you will have an opportunity to:

• Learn how ECA intelligence can help you aggressively – and defensibly – cull data before review
• Get tips for communicating about culling methods with opposing counsel
• Understand how

continue…

Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Time: 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT (60 minutes)

Tom Allman, a leading expert on state e-discovery, provides a midyear update on state-level activities. Fios’ Rebecca James moderates this informative session, which will cover the following topics:

• The continued impact of the 2006 amendments
• Evolving e-discovery standards at the state level
• Key e-discovery issues, including preservation
• The status of recent state rule-making efforts
• A look forward to the second half of 2012

Register Now.

Moderator:
Rebecca James, Esq., Programs Manager, Fios, Inc.

Faculty:
Thomas Y. Allman, Esq., Attorney and Consultant, Cincinnati, OH

Tom served as senior vice president, general counsel and chiefcontinue…

Date: Wednesday May 23, 2012
Time: 1:00 PM ET / 10:00 AM PT (60 minutes)

Aaron Crews, e-Discovery Counsel at Littler; Martha Dawson, Partner at K&L Gates; Joshua Gilliland of the Bowtie Law Blog; and Gina Sansone, Manager of Litigation Support and e-Discovery attorney at Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider (AVH) will discuss:

• A state-level predictive coding order – Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation (Vir. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23, 2012).
• Personal computers and preservation – United Factory Furniture Corp v. Alterwitz (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2012).
• Another predictive coding case – Kleen Products v. Packaging Corporation of America (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2012).
• Discoverable chats – Glazer v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance

continue…

Craig Ball’s paper, E-Discovery: A Special Master’s Perspective, acquaints readers with some of the circumstances lending themselves to appointment of a master, the advantages of using a master and the mechanics of appointment. The paper also includes tips on working with special masters, in particular eight questions litigants are expected to be able to answer. The paper’s appendix contains an exemplar appointment order. The full paper, plus appendix is available here.