I start with the premise that there is no reason whatsoever that you should be touching paper in your cases. Hearing this, you may have to go into a dark room, lie down, and put a cold compress on your head. But, once you get all of your paper documents onto a CD that you can carry around with you (including going to trial), instead of those wretched banker’s boxes, you will become a devoted fan.

The benefits of digitizing your case are many, but here are a few…

So we have an alternative, which is a remote ESI collection. Quite often D4 will use a pre-configured hard drive to facilitate remote collections. Using the scenario above as an example, here are 6 steps showing how a remote collection in eDiscovery works.

Last week I wrote about the different types of document family relationships. This week I’ll be addressing how you should treat those document families through the different stages of the e-discovery life cycle: (1) Processing & Pre-Processing, (2) Review, and (3) Production.

At the end of the two part blogging, when you are presented with these questions, my hope is that this post will help you to speak intelligently on the subject and make an informed decision about how you should proceed.

Let’s start with the basics; a document family can be created in multiple ways:

The justices must now decide whether to adopt these amendments. The following questions reflected concerns about e-discovery and a hope that the proposed rules will help trial court judges and lawyers.

Judge Peck is in the best position to determine when and if an evidentiary hearing is required and the exercise of his discretion is not contrary to law. Judge Peck has ruled that if the predictive coding software is flawed or if Plaintiffs are not receiving the types of documents that should be produced, the parties are allowed to reconsider their methods and raise their concerns with the Magistrate Judge.

A few weeks ago, Maureen Holland issued an impassioned report from the trenches about the all-too-common practice of lawyers using their Outlook accounts to review client e-mails. Not surprisingly, there are important reasons why this practice does not comport with Fed. R.Civ.P. 34.

To set the stage, here’s a short quiz.

Sedona, Arizona is a special town. Harmony, convergence, tranquility are all attributes one associates with this place. The scenery, energy and people make this the perfect place to meet and discuss the future of eDiscovery.

This past weekend I had the pleasure of heading down to my local Apple Store for a Genius Bar appointment to deal with my non-functioning iPhone. While sitting there, I overheard one of the resident “Geniuses” discussing restoration of an old damaged iPhone to a newer one via iCloud. The long and short of it is that this “Genius” instructed the owner of the two iPhones to turn on iCloud, allow the old damaged phone to back up to iCloud, and then use the backup of the old phone to transfer all of his data to the new phone through a restore.

Determining whether a review method is defensible (or, for that matter, any other action you take in your case), is, and has always been, a function of organization, iteration, sampling and documentation. However, as lawyers and e-discovery experts work to develop strong methods and clear documentation around TAR , there has been a lingering worry that something in that black box is going to blow up and damage your case.