Tara Emory, PMP
August 5, 2014
The typical eDiscovery conversation is focused on the “vast universe of emails” that counsel wants to search or the “document that was intentionally deleted.” It’s too easily forgotten and often neglected, but there’s a wealth of information hidden within structured data sources that can be analyzed to tell yet an even more convincing story than that of an email thread.
July 31, 2014
Judges have been using a wide variety of remedies and sanctions in discovery cases. Beyond the usual orders of attorney fees, fines, adverse inferences, and limitations on use of evidence, some judges have been especially creative. Educational remedies, for example, have included orders for payments to support e-discovery programs, and orders to attend such programs.
July 28, 2014
The District of Nevada has held that a party improperly used predictive coding, and should produce all documents containing keyword hits, in Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, No. 2:11-cv-00678-LRH-PAL (July 18, 2014) (amending Order of May 19, 2014). Although the court rejected use of predictive coding in this case, the lesson for future litigants is simply this: Don’t agree to a discovery protocol if you have not made efforts to understand the potential burdens associated with it.
July 28, 2014
Do you have a great memory? Unless you can remember what you had for breakfast every day for the last six months, you need to document each and every decision and action as you move along your discovery journey towards compliance. When something goes wrong in discovery, attorneys who do not carefully document their process frequently rely on emails and notes jotted into a legal pad to piece together the story of who did what and why.