In This Issue
- Social Media eDiscovery Case Study & Applicable Best Practices Webinar with D4 and X1 Discovery
- Three Reasons Why New York Practitioners Should Embrace eDiscovery by Cynthia Courtney, Esq.
- Conceptual (Analytics) Engines: Okay, I Have One. Now What Do I Do With It? by Ryan Peterson
- eDiscovery In the News and On the Web
Webinar with D4, X1 Discovery, and Honorable Robert B. Collings
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM EDT
Evidence from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social networking sites is now commonplace in litigation. However, despite extensive discussion on this topic, little direction has been given on how to actually collect, process and review social media evidence in a routine and scalable fashion, consistent with best practices– until now.
In this Webinar you will:
• Learn practical applications for searching, collecting and authenticating social media evidence;
• Hear about recent social media discovery case studies;
• Gain best practices for investigating social networking sites;
• Learn about emerging technologies and effective tools that can be applied to the challenges you face today for social media discovery.
By Cynthia Courtney, Esq.
Believe it or not, we have heard the following remarks in the last 6 months when we try to strike up a conversation about e-discovery: “We’re in state court here!” “I just ask for everything and trust they are giving it to me.” “We don’t do e-discovery!” And my personal favorite: “I don’t touch theirs, they don’t touch mine!”
I feel their pain. But it’s like learning to swim: It will be easier if we just hold our breath and dive in. Here are three reasons why a full-on embrace of e-discovery is ultimately the best path for the New York practitioner.
1. eDiscovery exists in New York state courts!
E-discovery is alive and well in New York practice. Effective March 20, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals amended the rules applicable to New York trial courts that hear civil cases to incorporate e-discovery requirements. Uniform Rule for New York State Trial Courts 202.12(c)(3) requires New York state litigants to address the scope of e-discovery, form of production, document preservation, and the locations and stewards of potentially relevant electronically stored information (ESI) during the PC—the preliminary conference with the court. The rule obliges lawyers to become knowledgeable about their client’s IT systems or bring an expert or client IT professional to the conference.
By Ryan Peterson
A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post discussing dirty data and Conceptual Engines. This week, I’d like to talk about how to deploy a conceptual engine for a review and what benefits you might expect to see if you should choose to do so.
Document reviews are typically the highest single expenditure for the discovery process because it involves actual people reviewing and coding data. As a result of the ever increasing sizes of data that are subject to requests for production, in-house and outside counsel are inevitably going to look for alternative methods of complying with discovery requests. In addition, in-house and outside counsel discovered long ago that when humans are involved, “human error” will also be involved and they must compensate for that error as part of their protocols.
Model Order Regarding E-Discovery In Patent Cases, Eastern District of Texas
Redline/Strikeout version of Appendix P, the Model Order Re: E-Discovery in Patent Cases
LegalTech2012: A Chat with Ralph Losey About Predictive Coding
Video: Ralph Losey chats about the science behind predictive coding, why it;s so useful and where it’s going.
Judge Peck Endorses Predictive Coding
Equivio News, Commentary by Conor R. Crowley, Esq., CIPP/US, March 5, 2012
Core Concepts of New ESI Guidlelines for Criminal Law
Shira A. Scheindlin and Jeffrey Rabkin, New York Law Journal, Law.com