September 21, 2020
A new technology-assisted review (TAR) case—Livingston v. City of Chicago—provides instructive guidance on any number of key issues surrounding the use of TAR. From affirming the notion of Sedona Principle Six and approving the use of search terms to pre-cull a data set to emphasizing the importance of not holding TAR to a higher standard than other search and review methods, Livingston provides additional clarity on issues sometimes clouded by conflicting TAR case law.
September 14, 2020
Driven, Inc. today announced it has become a member of the elite Brainspace Global Partner Program as part of their international services expansion strategy.
Membership in Brainspace’s Global Partner Program enables Driven, Inc. to expand customer use cases and strengthen corporate relationships
August 20, 2020
With so many lawyers focused on COVID-19, it would be easy to overlook the significant case law developments on electronic discovery that have transpired so far in 2020. Courts have issued any number of instructive orders on eDiscovery issues ranging from metadata production and technology-assisted review to cost shifting and sanctions. Three particularly compelling topics addressed by recent cases include: (1) native productions of Excel spreadsheets without relevance redactions; (2) an ESI sanctions order that rejects judicial reliance on inherent authority in favor of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e); and (3) the impropriety of Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502(d) non-waiver orders that result in the compelled production of privileged information.
August 11, 2020
Handling eDiscovery on matters that require compliance with the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) can be a challenge.[1] For those who have yet to experience working under ITAR, it comes into play when one or more parties (or a non-party) to a litigation is a US Government contractor, particularly in the national security or military/defense industry, and is responsible for the licensing, export or import of materials and services governed by the Arms Export Control Act.[2] Law firms and discovery service providers who wish to take on ITAR matters must fulfill the regulatory demands limiting who can access this potentially sensitive information. One key component is ensuring that the companies working on the matter are incorporated to do business in the United States, and relatedly, that all staff who will have access case documents meet the definition of “U.S. person” in ITAR.
August 4, 2020
The European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) invalidated on July 16, 2020, the EU-US “Privacy Shield,” the formal framework the European Union and the United States negotiated in 2016 for handling cross-border transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. Rumors of the Privacy Shield’s demise, which had been predicted for years, were finally borne out when the CJEU held in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland (Schrems II) that the Privacy Shield program failed to provide adequate judicial redress to European data subjects in the face of the overly broad nature of U.S. government surveillance programs.