eDiscovery news And Views
Keep your computer running swiftly and Relativity delivering speedy results. If your Relativity search is taking longer than expected, make sure you control the returned data set for faster search results. The more you are in control of your software the more efficiently you can operate. >> read more
In a case dealing with gender discrimination between female employees and a large advertising conglomerate, the plaintiffs filed claims against the defendants under Title VII of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and similar New York labor laws. After the plaintiffs objectioned to the defendants’ use of computer-assisted review and search method, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck opined that computer-assisted review is an acceptable search method for relevant ESI in appropriate cases. Throughout his opinion, Judge Peck referred to articles and public statements he had made prior to the case on his beliefs of the value of computer-assisted review.
e-Lesson Learned: Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, United States District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, wrote the first opinion of a court approving the use of computer-assisted review during discovery.
Judge Peck explains his interactions with the two parties involved started at the first discovery conference, which took place on December 11, 2011. While, both parties had discussed ESI protocol, the plaintiffs were reluctant to accept the defendant’s utilization of predictive coding to gather the relevant documents among the three million electronic documents from the agreed-upon custodians. In a later discovery conference, the court refuted the defendants’ proposal to cutoff production at the most relevant 40,000 documents due to expense, explaining that proportionality must consider cost and results in gathering the most likely highly responsive documents. The court went on to agree with the defendants on other factors concerning document production and custodians due to the fact that the plaintiffs could not give meaningful reasons for the inclusion of other custodians and emails or assert a likelihood that the information could be found through other reasonable discovery procedures.
On February 8, 2012, after going through the main issues that were holding up the discovery process, Judge Peck acknowledged that the defendants agreed to provide the plaintiffs with all seed documents and protocol in determining relevant ESI throughout the computer-assisted review process. With that knowledge, Judge Peck accepted the proposal that defendants submitted to the plaintiffs and the court for producing relevant ESI, and acknowledged that computer-assisted review was an efficient and officially judicially approved method for ESI protocol and production when given the appropriate case. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the court’s ruling.
Citation: Da Silva Moore, et. al. v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, No. 11 Civ. 1279(ALC)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2014).
By: Tameeka J. Bailey
California has just revised an existing opinion requiring attorneys to be better sufficiently skilled in eDiscovery, hire technical consultants or a competent counsel that is sufficiently skilled in the eDiscovery field, or decline representation all together in cases where eDiscovery is required.
The California State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility & Conduct has released a new version of the Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004, which is designed to establish an attorney’s ethical duties in the handling of discovery of electronically stored information (ESI).
The first page of the opinion now states:
“An attorney’s obligations under the ethical duty of competence evolve as new technologies develop and become integrated with the practice of law. Attorney competence related to litigation generally requires, among other things, and at a minimum, a basic understanding of, and facility with, issues relating to e-discovery, including the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”). On a case-by-case basis, the duty of competence may require a higher level of technical knowledge and ability, depending on the e-discovery issues involved in a matter, and the nature of the ESI. Competency may require even a highly experienced attorney to seek assistance in some litigation matters involving ESI. An attorney lacking the required competence for e-discovery issues has three options: (1) acquire sufficient learning and skill before performance is required; (2) associate with or consult technical consultants or competent counsel; or (3) decline the client representation. Lack of competence in e-discovery issues also may lead to an ethical violation of an attorney’s duty of confidentiality.”
Make sure your firm has the proper eDiscovery procedures in place to facilitate client needs and meet proposed regulations. Our hosted Relativity offering provides the most secure and comprehensive eDiscovery solution available with a pricing structure that is scalable to needs of all sizes.
[... ] The task of satisfying the Rules’ discovery provisions has lately become increasingly difficult. In a recent survey of federal legal professionals, far fewer respondents than in previous years felt confident that agencies could show that their electronically stored information (ESI) is “accurate, accessible, complete and trustworthy.”
Become your companies eDiscovery rockstar with this free Powerpoint presentation. Just upload your company logo and start to walk your team through four new learning’s from 2014 that will be immediately useful in your eDiscovery practice.
Their are always new opinions that clarify challenges regarding eDiscovery and modern technologies like the cloud and predictive coding. We have compiled summaries and key holdings from 4 cases in 2014 that are immediately useful in your discovery practice.
The 4 takeaways to immediately help your practice:
By Paul Brinkmann
South Florida companies that provide litigation support and electronic discovery are offering more fixed-price plans to help companies budget for litigation costs.
In April, Fort Lauderdale- based Credence Corp. rolled out a new managed services platform with more fixed pricing. That follows in the footsteps of companies including West Palm Beach- based FTI Consulting (NYSE: FCN), Kroll and Capsicum.
Data management for litigation has become a huge expense for many corporations. A 2011 study estimated that e-discovery for a significant commercial lawsuit costs an average of $3 million.
By Denise Johnson | June 14, 2012
After six years of study Florida is now fast tracking an e-discovery amendment to its rules of civil procedure.
Though technology is meant to streamline tasks, the way in which the resulting electronically stored information, also known as e-discovery in litigation, is stored, collected and produced has proven frustrating to many involved in the process.
“Most of the issues around e discovery — the cost of preserving, collecting and pressing through this vast amount of data ends up being more than what a case is potentially worth in terms of the lawsuit itself. And so, while the federal courts are still wrestling with this, so are e discovery service providers, and attorneys, and insurance companies with litigation and budgets,” said Dennis Hall, CEO of the South Florida-based Credence Corp., an e-discovery management company.
Credence Corp., one of the country’s premier Discovery Management companies, unveiled its managed services platform at the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) annual conference.
Focused on predictive coding, social media, lawyer malpractice, cost-shifting, and more, the conference took place from April 2 – 4, 2012 at the Westin Diplomat in Hollywood, Fla.
Credence Corp., a Charter Member of ACEDS, shared with the South Florida legal and corporate communities its culmination of best practices for data retention, collection and processing to help enhance effectiveness and efficiency in litigation – packaged in a fixed-price managed services platform.
the big name service providers."
David A. Hancock
Manager of Litigation Support Services, GrayRobinson
"Credence offers cutting edge solutions which demonstrated cost efficiencies across our litigation profile, while providing excellent service and attention to detail at every stage of discovery. It's refreshing to partner with a company who understands and excels at eDiscovery matter management."
Anthony V. LaMacchia