Close
Enter your
text here

Information Governance

The First 7 to 10 Days May Make or Break Your Case: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having worked with a client recently that was looking for some guidance at the outset of their case, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic here.

When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.

Activities:

  • Create List of Key Employees Most Likely to have Documents Relevant to the Litigation: To estimate the scope of the case, it’s important to begin to prepare the list of key employees that may have potentially responsive data. Information such as name, title, eMail address, phone number, office location and where information for each is stored on the network is important to be able to proceed quickly when issuing hold notices and collecting their data. Some of these employees may no longer be with your organization, so you may have to determine whether their data is still available and where.
  • Issue Litigation Hold Notice and Track Results: The duty to preserve begins when you anticipate litigation; however, if litigation could not be anticipated prior to the filing of the case, it is certainly clear once the case if filed that the duty to preserve has begun. Hold notices must be issued ASAP to all parties that may have potentially responsive data. Once the hold is issued, you need to track and follow up to ensure compliance. Here are a couple of posts from 2012 regarding issuing hold notices and tracking responses.
  • Interview Key Employees: As quickly as possible, interview key employees to identify potential locations of responsive data in their possession as well as other individuals they can identify that may also have responsive data so that those individuals can receive the hold notice and be interviewed.
  • Interview Key Department Representatives: Certain departments, such as IT, Records or Human Resources, may have specific data responsive to the case. They may also have certain processes in place for regular destruction of “expired” data, so it’s important to interview them to identify potentially responsive sources of data and stop routine destruction of data subject to litigation hold.
  • Inventory Sources and Volume of Potentially Relevant Documents: Potentially responsive data can be located in a variety of sources, including: shared servers, eMail servers, employee workstations, employee home computers, employee mobile devices, portable storage media (including CDs, DVDs and portable hard drives), active paper files, archived paper files and third-party sources (consultants and contractors, including cloud storage providers). Hopefully, the organization already has created a data map before litigation to identify the location of sources of information to facilitate that process. It’s important to get a high level sense of the total population to begin to estimate the effort required for discovery.
  • Plan Data Collection Methodology: Determining how each source of data is to be collected also affects the cost of the litigation. Are you using internal resources, outside counsel or a litigation support vendor? Will the data be collected via an automated collection system or manually? Will employees “self-collect” any of their own data? If so, important data may be missed. Answers to these questions will impact the scope and cost of not only the collection effort, but the entire discovery effort.

These activities can result in creating a data map of potentially responsive information and a “probable cost of discovery” spreadsheet (based on initial estimated scope compared to past cases at the same stage) that will help in determining whether to proceed to litigate the case or attempt to settle with the other side.

So, what do you think? How quickly do you decide whether to litigate or settle? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Three “C”s, Cowboys, Cannibals and Craig (Ball) – eDiscovery Best Practices

They say that a joke is only old if you haven’t heard it before. In that vein, an article about eDiscovery is only old if you haven’t read it before. Craig Ball is currently revisiting some topics that he covered ten years ago with an updated look, making them appropriate for 1) people who weren’t working in eDiscovery ten years ago (which is probably a lot of you), 2) people who haven’t read the articles previously and 3) people who have read the articles previously, but haven’t seen his updated takes.  In other words, everybody.

So far, Craig has published three revisited articles to his terrific Ball in your court blog. They are:

Starting Over, which sets the stage for the series, and covers The DNA of Data, which was the very first Ball in your court (when it was still in print form). This article discusses how electronic evidence isn’t going away and claims of inaccessible data and how technological advances have rendered claims of inaccessibility mostly moot.

Unclear on the Concept (originally published in Law Technology News in May of 2005), which discusses some of the challenges of early concept searching and related tools (when terms like “predictive coding” and “technology assisted review” hadn’t even entered our lexicon yet). Craig also pokes fun at himself for noting back then how he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Joyce Carol Oates in grade school. 🙂

Cowboys and Cannibals (originally published in Law Technology News in June of 2005), which discusses the need for a new email “sheriff” in town (not to be confused with U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola in this case) to classify emails for easier retrieval. Back then, we didn’t know just how big the challenge of Information Governance would become. His updated take concludes as follows:

“What optimism exists springs from the hope that we will move from the Wild West to Westworld, that Michael Crichton-conceived utopia where robots are gunslingers. The technology behind predictive coding will one day be baked into our IT apps, and much as it serves to protect us from spam today, it will organize our ESI in the future.”

That day is coming, hopefully sooner rather than later. And, you have to love a blog post that references Westworld, which was a terrific story and movie back in the 70s (wonder why nobody has remade that one yet?).

eDiscovery Daily has revisited topics several times as well, especially some of the topics we covered in the early days of the blog, when we didn’t have near as many followers yet. It’s new if you haven’t read it, right? I look forward to future posts in Craig’s series.

So, what do you think? How long have you been reading articles about eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image © Metro Goldwyn Mayer

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Most Big Companies Have a Big Data Program, But They’re Not Crazy about the Term “Big Data” – eDiscovery Trends

Yesterday, we discussed some amazing facts about just how “BIG” that Big Data has gotten to be.  Today, let’s look at what BIG companies are doing about BIG data.

NewVantage Partners has just released a new survey (their third annual survey) of Fortune 1000 senior business and technology executives regarding their companies’ investments in Big Data entitled Big Data Executive Survey 2014: An Update on the Progress of Big Data in the Large Corporate World.  Survey respondents are Fortune 1000 senior business and technology executives who have a vested interest in the success of an organization’s data and analytics, and Big Data, initiatives.  This year, 59 companies participated, with 125 individual executive respondents.  78% of the participating organizations were in the financial services sector, including companies such as American Express, Fidelity Investments, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Lincoln Financial and Wells Fargo.  Here’s a link to the Executive Summary for the report.

As noted in their press release, here are some key findings from the survey:

  • Big Data is Becoming Mainstream: Executives report that their corporate investments in Big Data are projected to grow from 35% to 75% by 2017 for investments greater than $10MM, and by a remarkable 6% to 28% for investments greater than $50MM.  67% of executives now report that they have Big Data initiatives running in production within the corporation.
  • Enthusiasm for Big Data Initiatives is Widespread: 82% of executives say that Big Data is “important or mission critical” to their organizations and 74% believe that its value “warrants serious attention.”
  • Business-IT Partnership is Key to Big Data Adoption: 88% of executives cited the importance of a strong business-IT partnership, with 77% citing business leadership and sponsorship, and partnership and organizational alignment as being the most critical factors in ensuring successful adoption of Big Data initiatives within the corporation.
  • The Chief Data Officer is an Emerging Role: 43% of executives report that their organization has established a Chief Data Officer (CDO) function, up from only 19% in 2012.

While big companies are embracing programs to manage Big Data, they’re not too keen on the term “Big Data”.  Fewer than 1 in 5 respondents (17%) feel that the name is “apt and descriptive,” and the rest dislike it (30%) or view it as overstated (53%).  As discussed in the Executive Summary, that finding raises the question whether everyone means the same thing when they’re talking about Big Data.  Regardless, it’s clear that large organizations are becoming seriously invested in programs to manage Big Data, regardless what they want to call it.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a plan for managing Big Data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Just How “BIG” is Big Data Getting? Check Out These Facts – eDiscovery Trends
If you work with information as an attorney, paralegal, litigation support professional or information technology (IT) professional, you have probably heard the term “big data” at an ever increasing rate.  But, just how BIG is big data getting?  Check out these facts.

An article by Bernard Marr on SmartData Collective (Big Data: 25 Amazing Need-to-Know Facts) provides some startling facts that you might be surprised to know.  Here are a few examples (with sources linked):

  • Every 2 days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of time until 2003;
  • Over 90% of all the data in the world was created in the past 2 years;
  • It is expected that by 2020 the amount of digital information in existence will have grown from 3.2 zettabytes today to 40 zettabytes (FYI, a zettabyte is one billion terabytes!);
  • The total amount of data being captured and stored by industry doubles every 1.2 years;
  • If you burned all of the data created in just one day onto DVDs, you could stack them on top of each other and reach the moon – twice;
  • 570 new websites spring into existence every minute of every day;
  • 1.9 million IT jobs will be created in the US by 2015 to carry out big data projects. Each of those will be supported by 3 new jobs created outside of IT – meaning a total of 6 million new jobs thanks to big data;
  • The big data industry is expected to grow from US$10.2 billion in 2013 to about US$54.3 billion by 2017.

With this level of data growth in the world, it’s no wonder that information governance and eDiscovery continues to be more challenging!

Check out Bernard’s article here for the entire list of 25 facts (it even includes a slide deck!).  And, thanks to Rob Robinson’s excellent ComplexDiscovery site for the heads up!

Tomorrow, we will take a look at what big companies think about (and what they’re doing about) big data.  Speaking of something BIG, check this out.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a plan for managing big data?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Those Pesky Email Signatures and Disclaimers – eDiscovery Best Practices
Are email signatures and disclaimers causing more trouble than they’re worth?  According to one author, perhaps they are.

Earlier this week, Jeff Bennion wrote an interesting post on the Above the Law blog (‘Please Consider the Environment Before Printing’ Email Signatures Are Hurting the Environment) where he noted that, about 5 years ago, people started putting ‘Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail’ in their email signature (along with a webdings font character of a tree).

Bennion states that this is “the Kony 2012 of the environmental battles – it’s a noble war, but a pointless battle” and that the printing of emails is only a tiny fraction of the paper that lawyers waste.  Instead, he notes, “the ‘please consider the environment’ email signature is more like one of those ‘I voted’ stickers — both serve no purpose other than proclaiming your self-righteousness for performing a civic duty”.

In fact, per a Time magazine article, the internet accounts for a good deal of the pollution in the world. In a 2011 article, cleantechnica.com reported that there were about 500,000 data centers in the world and each used 10 megawatts of energy a month.  That’s a lot more than 1.21 gigawatts.  Great Scott!

When comparing Word files containing data that might go into an email with the same data that also includes the email signature, Bennion observes that the one with the email signature contains .3 KB more of data than the one without the signature.  He extrapolates that out to 27,000 GB of extra useless data being added to internet storage servers every day (10 million GB per year) over all business emails, while acknowledging that not all 90 billion business emails are including the signature.  “The point is that it is a pointless gesture that, as a whole, does more harm than good”, Bennion states.

And, the same holds true for those confidential and privileged email disclaimers at the bottom of emails, which he observes “take up about 10-20 times more wasted space than the ‘please stop printing your emails’ disclaimer” – “roughly the environmental equivalent of clubbing 3 baby seals a month”.  Some interesting takes.

These email signatures and disclaimers also affect eDiscovery costs, both in terms of extra data to process and also host.  They can also lead to false hits when searching text and affect conceptual clustering or predictive coding of documents (which are based on text content of the documents) unless steps are taken to remove those from indices and ignore the text when performing those processes.  All of which can lead to extra work and extra cost.

So, what do you think?  Do you use “please stop printing your emails” signatures and confidential and privileged email disclaimers?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

How Mature is Your Organization in Handling eDiscovery? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A new self-assessment resource from EDRM helps you answer that question.

A few days ago, EDRM announced the release of the EDRM eDiscovery Maturity Self-Assessment Test (eMSAT-1), the “first self-assessment resource to help organizations measure their eDiscovery maturity” (according to their press release linked here).

As stated in the press release, eMSAT-1 is a downloadable Excel workbook containing 25 worksheets (actually 27 worksheets when you count the Summary sheet and the List sheet of valid choices at the end) organized into seven sections covering various aspects of the e-discovery process. Complete the worksheets and the assessment results are displayed in summary form at the beginning of the spreadsheet.  eMSAT-1 is the first of several resources and tools being developed by the EDRM Metrics group, led by Clark and Dera Nevin, with assistance from a diverse collection of industry professionals, as part of an ambitious Maturity Model project.

The seven sections covered by the workbook are:

  1. General Information Governance: Contains ten questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of information governance.
  2. Data Identification, Preservation & Collection: Contains five questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of these “left side” phases.
  3. Data Processing & Hosting: Contains three questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of processing, early data assessment and hosting.
  4. Data Review & Analysis: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of search and review.
  5. Data Production: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s handling of production and protecting privileged information.
  6. Personnel & Support: Contains two questions to answer regarding your organization’s hiring, training and procurement processes.
  7. Project Conclusion: Contains one question to answer regarding your organization’s processes for managing data once a matter has concluded.

Each question is a separate sheet, with five answers ranked from 1 to 5 to reflect your organization’s maturity in that area (with descriptions to associate with each level of maturity).  Default value of 1 for each question.  The five answers are:

  • 1: No Process, Reactive
  • 2: Fragmented Process
  • 3: Standardized Process, Not Enforced
  • 4: Standardized Process, Enforced
  • 5: Actively Managed Process, Proactive

Once you answer all the questions, the Summary sheet shows your overall average, as well as your average for each section.  It’s an easy workbook to use with input areas defined by cells in yellow.  The whole workbook is editable, so perhaps the next edition could lock down the calculated only cells.  Nonetheless, the workbook is intuitive and provides a nice exercise for an organization to grade their level of eDiscovery maturity.

You can download a copy of the eMSAT-1 Excel workbook from here, as well as get more information on how to use it (the page also describes how to provide feedback to make the next iterations even better).

The EDRM Maturity Model Self-Assessment Test is the fourth release in recent months by the EDRM Metrics team. In June 2013, the new Metrics Model was released, in November 2013 a supporting glossary of terms for the Metrics Model was published and in November 2013 the EDRM Budget Calculators project kicked off (with four calculators covered by us here, here, here and here).  They’ve been busy.

So, what do you think?  How mature is your organization in handling eDiscovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Our 1,000th Post! – eDiscovery Milestones

When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis.  Now, after doing so each business day (except for one), I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily!

We’ve covered the gamut in eDiscovery, from case law to industry trends to best practices.  Here are some of the categories that we’ve covered and the number of posts (to date) for each:

We’ve also covered every phase of the EDRM (177) life cycle, including:

Every post we have published is still available on the site for your reference, which has made eDiscovery Daily into quite a knowledgebase!  We’re quite proud of that.

Comparing our first three months of existence to now, we have seen traffic on our site grow an amazing 474%!  Our subscriber base has more than tripled in the last three years!  We want to take this time to thank you, our readers and subcribers, for making that happen.  Thanks for making the eDiscoveryDaily blog a regular resource for your eDiscovery news and analysis!  We really appreciate the support!

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, Ride the Lightning, Litigation Support Guru, Complex Discovery, Bryan University, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Litigation Support Today, Alltop, ABA Journal, Litigation Support Blog.com, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, EDD Blog Online, eDiscovery Journal, e-Discovery Team ® and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

I also want to extend a special thanks to Jane Gennarelli, who has provided some serial topics, ranging from project management to coordinating review teams to what litigation support and discovery used to be like back in the 80’s (to which some of us “old timers” can relate).  Her contributions are always well received and appreciated by the readers – and also especially by me, since I get a day off!

We always end each post with a request: “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.”  And, we mean it.  We want to cover the topics you want to hear about, so please let us know.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back with a new, original post.  In the meantime, feel free to click on any of the links above and peruse some of our 999 previous posts.  Now is your chance to catch up!  😉

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Thursday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted Monday, Tuesday and yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  This is the last day to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions still available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 3 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

LEDES – The Proliferation of Jurisdictional e-Billing Requirements and UTBMS Code Sets

Description: The ABA originally released four UTBMS (Uniform Task Based Management System) code sets in 1998. The original code sets were tailored to categorize services performed by counsel on litigation and bankruptcy matters, or to accommodate project and counseling work. The past few years have been marked by a dramatic increase in the number of UTBMS code sets available, with the development of additional (or revision of existing) code sets for jurisdictional billing (Canada, England and Wales) and for Governance, Risk and Compliance, Knowledge Management, Patent, Trademark, transactional and eDiscovery work. What’s going on with all this new development? How do jurisdictional laws and requirements impact the complexity of implementing UTBMS in law firms? What steps is the LOC considering to alleviate this burden? During this session we will take a look at the various jurisdictions worldwide requiring eBilling and how jurisdictional billing codes are proliferating as a result. Audience participation is encouraged!

Speakers are: Jane A. Bennitt – Global Legal Ebilling, LLC; Cathi J. Collins – Bridgeway Software.

Large Firm Hustle: An Oscar-Worthy Discussion Forum

Description: Large firms have unique pain points (and unique successes) worthy of a closer look. Join our thought-provoking discussion as we focus on issues — such as IT department relocation, DMS security and collaboration, information governance, email headaches and client-driven changes in legal IT — that profoundly affect larger legal organizations.

Speakers are: John Kuttler – Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Constance Hoffman – Bryan Cave, LLP.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

E-Discovery Review Platform Selection – One Year Later

Description: Attend this follow up to last year’s popular panel discussion which focused on the search for and selection of e-discovery solutions. We have reconvened a panel to discuss the solutions they selected and will now share lessons learned from the complicated steps of implementation, rollout and adoption. The panel will also offer guidance and advice for all those contemplating or in the middle of the selection and deployment of an e-discovery solution.

Speakers are: Stephen Dooley – Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Deanna E. Blomquist – Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; David Hasman – Bricker & Eckler LLP.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Wednesday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted Monday and yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 4 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

Aligning the Tenets of Information Governance with Your Firm’s IG Strategy

Description: Learn to develop an information governance strategy that incorporates the four dimensions of information risk management (records management, privacy, cybersecurity and e-discovery.) Our panel will share examples of how they integrated setting controls, reduced costs and improved compliance at their firms.

Speakers are: James Fortmuller – Kelley Drye & Warren LLP; Ann Ostrander – Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Brynmor Bowen – Greenheart Consulting Partners LLC; Terry Coan – HBR Consulting LLC.

What Happens on Facebook Doesn’t Stay on Facebook: Social Media Discovery Tools

Description: Social media are a rich, enormous source of information. We’ll take a look at both the legalities of using social media e-discovery and pros and cons of different tools, such as products for Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, Website Archival and web-based email.

Speakers are: Julie K. Brown – Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP; Doug Matthews – Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP; Andrew Keck – ProFile Discovery.

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM:

A Checklist for Getting the Most Out of Your E-Discovery Vendor Relationship

Description: Today’s legal environment has made it nearly impossible to have litigation without some amount of e-discovery involving an outside vendor. E-discovery can be fully outsourced, done entirely in-house or involve a combination of both. Whatever your organization’s e-discovery needs, it’s important to know how to navigate the vendor relationship. Leave with a checklist of issues to consider and important questions to ask when evaluating e-discovery vendor services.

Speakers are: Kristen Atteberry – Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Brett Tarr – Caesars Entertainment Legal Department; Babs Deacon – The EDJ Group Inc.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better … Predictive Coding vs. Human Review

Description: As Ethel Merman and Ray Middleton melodically contested in “Annie Get Your Gun”, “Anything you can do, I can do better; I can do anything better than you”. The disagreement continues when comparing predictive coding to human review. Come hear results of the Electronic Discovery Institute’s predictive coding study and get a non-biased, scientific view into the world of predictive coding. How did e-discovery service providers compare to each other? Do quality results and high cost go together? How did human review results compare to predictive coding? Do humans still rule?

Speaker is: Patrick L. Oot – Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Tuesday’s ILTA Sessions – eDiscovery Trends

As noted yesterday, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) annual educational conference of 2014 is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily will be reporting this week about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Nashville area with a number of sessions available and over 190(!) exhibitors providing information on their products and services.

Perform a “find” on today’s ILTA conference schedule for “discovery” or “information governance” and you’ll get 3 sessions with hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

11:00 AM – 12:30 PM:

ARMA: Information Governance: A Revenue Source Potential

Description: Law firms are under increased financial pressure due to a highly competitive market and clients demanding fixed-fee contracts. Information governance (IG) offers firms the opportunity to not only create a new practice but also to tap into a new source of revenue by leveraging existing relationships and experience. Attendees will learn about the impact of IG, opportunities for information governance at law firms and how law firms can help their clients with IG.

Speaker is: Martin Tuip – ARMA International

1:30 PM – 2:30 PM:

Ungoverned Information Equals Litigation Disaster: What Your Firm Should Do

Description: What’s the difference between well-controlled risk and unmitigated disaster? Information governance (IG) of course! Because client data often enters your firm through the litigation support process, effective risk management relies on successful collaboration between IG, litigation support and IT. Our experienced panel will share guidance on how to build successful, practical IG processes around e-discovery. We’ll focus on real-world consequences of IG failure in this realm and tactics firms are using to mitigate associated risks.

Speakers are: Caroline Sweeney – Dorsey & Whitney; Teresa Britton – Exelon Corporation Business Services Company; Brian Jenson – Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

3:30 PM – 4:30 PM:

Tell It to the Judge – An Audience with Respected Jurist Judge Andrew Peck on Various E-Discovery Topics

Description: Judge Peck will look into his crystal ball to dicuss five prevalent e-discovery topics and answer additional questions from the audience. Come hear the views of an esteemed judge regarding these topics.

Speakers are: Thomas Morrissey – Purdue Pharma L.P.; Andrew J Peck – US District Court Southern District of New York.

For a complete listing of all sessions at the conference today, click here.  There’s even yoga!

So, what do you think?  Are you planning to attend ILTA this year?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.