The ideal of cooperation by opposing parties to address eDiscovery has been around for a while now. Since the The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation called for “cooperative, collaborative, [and] transparent discovery” in 2008, adversarial cooperation has been touted among the judiciary and certain practitioners as the key to success in proportional discovery.

The push to develop an information governance (IG) program is often stonewalled by the great interrogative “why.” Questions like “why are we budgeting money to solve a problem that does not exist?” can derail promising programs even when justified by a proper use case.

Data transfers between the United States and the European Union have grown increasingly complex. Multinational companies require certain levels of information sharing among locations in different locations as part of their day-to-day operations. In addition, data created on one side of the Atlantic may be relevant to a lawsuit or investigation on the other side.

A question that we often hear is, “What should the retention policy be for my email?” Our response is always the same: “It depends.” There is no one-size-fits-all solution for how long an organization should retain its email because every organization is different, even though email is structurally the same.

The nature of a lawyer’s duty of competence has been the subject of debate ever since the ABA revised its definition of competence almost four years ago to require lawyers to understand “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Since that time, much ink has been spilled advocating the importance of technological competence for lawyers, particularly in the area of eDiscovery.