Electronic Discovery

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Legal Right Supersedes Physical Possession When It Comes to Control of ESI, Court Rules: eDiscovery Case Law

In First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., et. al., No. 15-638 (E.D. La., May 24, 2017), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Reasonable Expenses against one of the defendants in “substantial part” with regard to interrogatories and requests for production of ESI within physical possession of the former owners of the defendant company, but denied “in limited part” with regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, because “neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court”.

Case Background

In this case regarding damages the plaintiff allegedly incurred as a result of “deficient and defective” software design, manufacture and hosting of software products for use by plaintiff in processing cash advance and check cashing at casinos, the plaintiff served discovery requests, including document requests upon one defendant – Smart Business Technology, Inc. (Smart).  After determining Smart’s responses and objections to be lacking, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel and for Reasonable Expenses to obtain additional responses to certain interrogatories and certain document requests.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Wilkinson granted the motion with regard to the plaintiff’s Interrogatories, overruling all objections and stating that “defendant has offered nothing sufficient to support or establish its objections on grounds of disproportionality and undue burden and expense outweighing the likely benefit of this highly relevant discovery.”

With regard to the defendant’s objections to producing requested ESI because it “does not have possession of the requested data” because it “is no longer a going concern” and, upon its business demise, the materials “remained in the hands of [its] former owners and top officers, co-defendants Fuente and Romero”, Judge Wilkinson stated that “[t]his argument is unpersuasive for two reasons… First, because defendant did not assert this argument in its Rule 34(b) written responses, the objection has been waived… Second, a party’s obligation to produce materials in the Rule 34 production and inspection process extends beyond mere possession. Defendant’s obligation is to produce such materials or electronically stored information (“ESI”) that are within its possession, custody or control…Rule 34’s definition of possession, custody, or control, includes more than actual possession or control of [documents]; it also contemplates a party’s legal right or practical ability to obtain [documents] from a [non-party] to the action.”

With regard to the plaintiff’s request to take forensic imaging of the defendant company’s computer system, Judge Wilkinson stated that the “motion is denied, at least at this time”, noting that “[u]nlike the discovery that is the subject of the interrogatories and requests for production addressed above, neither the relevance nor the proportionality of the forensic imaging sought by this request are readily apparent to the court.”

So, what do you think?  What does “possession, custody or control” mean to you?  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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

We Get By With a Little Help From Our Friends: eDiscovery Trends

If you’re in or near my age bracket, you probably remember the similarly titled song by The Beatles (though I actually like the Joe Cocker version better – a rare Beatles re-make that could be argued to be better than the original).  Feel free to debate me on that – after you’ve watched his Woodstock rendition.  Anyway, for any provider working in eDiscovery today (whether law firm or eDiscovery software/service provider), there are instances where working with a partner just makes sense.

The LegalTech News article (Partnering for Success: The Role of the Partnership in Legal Tech, written by Gabrielle Orum Hernández, free subscription required), profiles the expansion of CloudNine’s partner program with our recently announced Alliance Partner Program expansion.  The program allows qualified and approved organizations to enrich the business value and technology competitiveness of their eDiscovery solutions through the integration, referral, and resell of CloudNine software and services.

CloudNine CEO Brad Jenkins told Legaltech News that the partner program is an attempt to leverage some of the strong loyalties and connections that exist within the legal sphere by essentially paying to develop relationships. “Probably the biggest reason [for the partner program expansion] is we have found that in this industry it very much falls into relationship-selling a lot of times,” he said.

The CloudNine Alliance Partner Program consists of three categories of partners:

  1. Technology Partners: Data and legal discovery developers who work with CloudNine to develop, integrate, and deploy solutions leveraging CloudNine technology. The business benefit for technology partners is the extension of their capability to access new customers and new markets.
  2. Referral Partners: Data and legal discovery consultants and providers who recommend CloudNine software and services to their customers. The business benefit for referral partners is direct compensation for the introduction and acceptance of CloudNine by end users.
  3. Channel Partners: Data and legal discovery service providers who sell CloudNine software and services to their customers as part of their portfolio of offerings. The business benefit for channel partners is the ability to resell CloudNine software and services as part of their solutions. CloudNine has long had an extensive channel partner network.

In her article, Hernández mentions several other companies that have made use of the partner model, including kCura (which is a CloudNine technology partner), Neota Logic and HighQ, and Discovia and Brainspace.

In noting that the partnership model allows eDiscovery adjacent companies to offer legal organizations the option of unbundling pieces of their service, Jenkins said “It’s a value-add, a way to meet the needs of the market that’s shifting to the self-service model…What we’ve been able to do is augment the tools that these companies have because now they can still leverage Relativity or their own product, but they have tools like ours which significantly reduce the cost and time of getting those smaller data sets, the day-in, day-out type of projects, in.”

So, if you’re a provider of eDiscovery services today, large or small, sometimes you get by with a little help from your friends.

To schedule a discussion about the CloudNine Alliance Partner Program or to sign up for a free trial of CloudNine’s eDiscovery Platform, contact us at 713.462.3885, info@eDiscovery.co, or at eDiscovery.co.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Does your organization work partner with other companies to provide software or services?  As always, 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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

This New Pilot Program Can Speed Up Discovery, Especially in Arizona and Illinois: eDiscovery Best Practices

At its meeting in September of 2016, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved a pilot program to test procedures requiring mandatory initial discovery before the commencement of party-directed discovery in civil cases.  Now, that pilot program – the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program – is already in use in Arizona and Illinois.

The Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDPP) Pilot Program has been designed to test whether early substantial disclosure of information can reduce litigation costs and shorten the time for case resolution consistent with the goals of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the court and the parties to employ the rules “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of every case.

As noted in the Above the Law article (Holy Early Discovery, Batman! You’ll Want To Know About This, written by Kelly Twigger), the District of Arizona (effective May 1) and the Northern District of Illinois (effective June 1) “have adopted the MID pilot project for three years. The pilot requires parties to produce all discovery in support of their case (consistent with Rule 26(a)) but ALSO all discovery that is relevant to the opposing parties’ claims and/or defenses. And wait, it gets better — responses have to be filed within 30 days of filing an answer (which everyone now has to do) and documents must be produced 40 days later.”

And, as the description “mandatory” implies, the MIDPP will apply to all civil cases in the volunteer courts, subject to certain specific exemptions.  According to Twigger, those exemptions are “pro se cases, PLSRA matters, MDL matters, and patent cases.”

The Federal Judicial Center site provides several resources regarding the MID Pilot program here, including:

There is also a Checklist page and a Users’ Manual page that provides a general checklist and user’s manual for the MIDPP, as well as specific checklists and user’s manuals for the District of Arizona and the Northern District of Illinois.

So, what do you think?  Will the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program lead to a speedier and more proportional discovery cycle?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Give yourself a pat on the back if you recognize the movie where the graphic came from – Copyright © Paramount Pictures.  Don’t recognize it?  Surely, you can’t be serious!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

In a Second Case, Judge Specifies Search Terms for Parties to Use: eDiscovery Case Law

In Abbott v. Wyoming Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 15-CV-531W (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017), New York Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant’s cross-motion in part, ordering the defendant to perform additional production over a disputed time period, based on a list of search terms ordered by Judge Scott.

Case Background

In this case concerning allegations that the defendant deprived the plaintiff of promotions and work shifts or assignments that she was otherwise eligible to receive, for no reason other than her medical condition of epilepsy, the plaintiff (in February 2016) requested all emails sent and received by three key custodians “from September 2009 through the present, in native, electronic format, subject to an agreement of the parties regarding search terms.”  The defendant responded in September 2016, producing approximately 1,004 pages of responsive email messages and a privilege log containing 369 separate entries.

That request appeared to be fulfilled until the plaintiff’s deposition in February 2017, during which the plaintiff described discrimination and retaliation occurring through the present time. The description of ongoing improper conduct prompted the suspension of her deposition and different protests from each side. The defendant protested that the plaintiff did not describe ongoing conduct in her responses to its interrogatories, while the plaintiff protested that the defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s request did not include any email messages dated after February 2016. The pending cross-motions soon followed.

Judge’s Ruling

In looking at the complaint and the plaintiff’s second supplemental response, prepared after the start of the plaintiff’s deposition, Judge Scott noted that the plaintiff “mentions only two specific events that occurred after any produced email messages dated from February 2016”: “a denial of transport duties that occurred as recently as February 9, 2017; and an inability to apply for a sergeant’s position in July 2016”, along with a few written warnings.

Observing that the request “does not have to be revisited for any other topics”, Judge Scott stated that “[o]n at least one prior occasion, the Court has crafted discovery production based on specific search terms”Armstrong Pump, Inc. v. Hartman, No. 10-CV-446S (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2014), which we covered here.  As a result, Judge Scott ordered the defendant to “supplement its response to Request 15 by searching for email messages dated between March 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017 that contain Abbott’s name, or any name mentioned in her second supplemental response, plus any of the following search terms:

  • sergeant
  • cell phone
  • control room
  • booking
  • transport
  • court hours
  • late OR lateness
  • surveillance OR camera”

Judge Scott denied the plaintiff’s motion “to the extent that it seeks any other relief”, observing that “[e]ven with allegations of ongoing retaliation, defendants at some point need to have some finality about what they are facing.”

So, what do you think?  Should courts craft search terms for parties to use in litigation?  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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

“Master” Your Knowledge of eDiscovery With This Conference in Denver Today: eDiscovery Trends

Ain’t no mountain high enough!  Today, CloudNine is participating in The Master’s Conference 2017 Denver event.  If you’re in the Denver area today, join my colleague Julia Romero Peter and other legal technology experts and professionals at The Master’s Conference event for a full day of educational sessions covering a wide range of topics!

The Master’s Conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.  This year’s Denver event – “Rocky Career? Facing Mountains Of Data Challenges?” – covers topics ranging from technology evaluations to forces changing eDiscovery to analytics and social media discovery.  Cybersecurity and data privacy are covered too.

The event will be held at NATIV Hotel, 1612 Wazee St, Denver, CO 80202.  Registration begins at 8am, with sessions starting right after that, at 8:30am.

CloudNine will be sponsoring the session Data, Discovery, and Decisions: Extending Discovery From Collection To Creation at 11:15am.  Julia, our General Counsel and VP of Sales, will be moderating a panel that includes Kelly Twigger, Founder of ESI Attorneys, Michael Burg, Corporate Counsel at Dish Network and Shawn Huston, Managing Partner at LSP Data Solutions LLC.

Their panel discussion will focus on objective of data discovery through Legal Discovery, a framework for approaching discovery, process challenges and technical hurdles and outside the box challenges and solutions.  It should be a very informative discussion with a very knowledgeable panel!  Hope you can join them!

Click here to register for the conference.  It’s a day well spent with sessions all day long, including the keynote at lunch by the Honorable Craig B. Shaffer, U.S. Magistrate Judge in Denver.

This year, The Master’s Conference also has events scheduled for New York City, London(!), Washington DC and Orlando.  Click here for more information on remaining scheduled events for the year.

BTW, if you’re a member of a solo or small law firm or want to learn how to simplify the discovery process, feel free to check this upcoming webcast!

So, what do you think?  Are you in Denver today?  If so, check it out!  And, as always, 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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Personnel, Not Technology the Biggest Factor Prohibiting Business Value from Long-Term Digital Info: eDiscovery Trends

In this era of big data, an organization’s ability to govern and preserve digital information, especially long-term digital information, is key. Earlier this month, the Information Governance Initiative (IGI), working closely with IGI Supporter Preservica, provided a benchmark of the state of the industry on the critical issue of governing and preserving long-term digital information.  Let’s take a look.

In its second annual survey of IG professionals regarding the use of long-term digital information (i.e., longer than ten years), IGI and Preservica had several interesting findings.  Last year, their benchmark report illustrated an interesting finding that virtually every responding organization (98%) needs digital information for longer than ten years, but very few (16%) have a viable approach.  This year’s survey had some interesting findings as well, such as:

  • The vast majority of responding organizations (83%) realize (or plan to realize) direct business value from their long-term digital information, targeting areas like market analysis, product development, and customer service;
  • The top 3 challenges preventing organizations from getting business value from their long-term digital information are: 1) Lack of personnel dedicated to the issue, 2) Organizations capability in this area is informal or immature, and 3) Organizations lack the proper tools or technology;
  • Not surprisingly, IG professionals indicated that the C-Suite is affected the most by failure to effectively govern and preserve digital information, with CEOs, General Counsels, heads of Records Management, CIOs, and Boards of Directors are those most affected by failure in this area;
  • Business functions most requiring long-term digital information included Legal operations (79% of respondents), Financial management (67%), HR management (64%) and IP management (48%);
  • Business applications most containing long-term digital information included Collaboration environments (80% of respondents), Accounting systems (75%), Contract management systems (71%), Transactional systems (58%), Messaging systems (55%) and Case management systems (54%);
  • The most critical capabilities to preserving and governing long-term digital information are Ensuring readability and usability of information (89%), Proving authenticity and trustworthiness (79%), Supporting records retention and disposition requirements (79%), Providing secure access and discovery to business users (62%), Conformance with standards for digital preservation (59%) and Automated transfer of records from operational systems to long-term digital preservation systems (51%).

To see a summary and download a copy of the Infographics for this report, click here (signup required, but it’s free).

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised the extent of the need for digital information longer than ten years?  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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Discovery Requests

Court Grants Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants for Intentional Spoliation: eDiscovery Case Law

In Omnigen Research et. al. v. Wang et. al., No. 16-00268 (D. Oregon, May 23, 2017), Oregon District Judge Michael J. McShane granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions and agreed to issue an Order of Default Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (while dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims) due to the defendants’ intentional destruction of evidence on several occasions.

Case Background

In this case (for breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, false advertising and unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty filed against a former employee of the plaintiff, Yongqiang Wang), the plaintiffs alleged that in 2012, while still employed by the plaintiff, he stole trade secrets and created two rival businesses, including the defendant company Bioshen.  The plaintiffs, concerned in part about the possible destruction of evidence early in the case, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was granted in May 2016, to force the defendants to “immediately produce to Plaintiffs all electronic media in their custody, possession or control for purposes of verifying that they do not contain Plaintiff’s confidential and/or copyrighted material.”

Eleven days later, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause because Wang had left for China without producing his laptop as required by the Preliminary Injunction. A hearing on the issue was held and, in addition to other requirements, the defendants were ordered to “download all of the contents of the computer in China on a portable hard drive and have it mailed to defense counsel within 7 days, and deliver any computers or portable storage data to defense counsel by 5/27/2016.”

The plaintiffs were required to seek court intervention regarding discovery on multiple occasions because of the failure of the defense to adequately respond to their requests for production.  Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed their Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions on 3/3/2017, with oral arguments heard on the motion on 4/18/2017.

Judge’s Ruling

Before detailing all of the instances where the defendants “intentionally” deleted or destroyed evidence, Judge McShane stated:

“As stated during oral arguments on 4/18/2017, the Court finds the destruction of evidence by the defendants was intentional. The plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions describes in full detail the many ways the defendants intentionally hid or destroyed evidence in this case. In summary, Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made their desktop computer unavailable by “donating” it to Goodwill, that the defendants intentionally deleted thousands of documents from Wang’s personal Lenovo computer, that the defendants intentionally deleted and refused to produce relevant emails from multiple email accounts, and that the defendants intentionally destroyed metadata. These actions have deprived the Plaintiffs of evidence central to their case and undermined the Court’s ability to enter a judgment based on the evidence. For these reasons, default judgment and terminating sanctions for the spoliation of evidence is warranted FRCP 37(b)(2), Rule 37(e), and the Court’s inherent authority to sanction abusive litigation practices.”

As a result, Judge McShane granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Spoliation Sanctions and agreed to issue an Order of Default Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs while dismissing the defendants’ counterclaims.

So, what do you think?  With the new Rule 37(e) (since December 2015), do you think it takes this level of intent to obtain significant sanctions?  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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Over 80 Percent of Hacking Related Breaches Were Related to Password Issues: Cybersecurity Trends

I’ve referred to last year’s Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) in several webcasts lately (including this one) and realized that this year’s report should have already come out by now.  Sure enough it has, about a month and a half ago.  Let’s see what the findings are.

Last year’s report (covered here) started with the Yogi Berra quote “It’s like déjà vu, all over again.”  This year’s report (available for download from here), despite the dire statistics below, starts with a bit more positivity with a quote from Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder: “Hope is the pillar of the world.”  Way to stay positive, Verizon!

Some interesting statistics from the 76 page PDF report:

  • 81% of hacking-related breaches used stolen passwords and/or weak passwords.
  • Three-quarters (75%) of breaches were perpetrated by outsiders, which, of course, means that one-quarter (25%) involved internal actors.
  • 51% of breaches involved organized criminal groups, while 18% were conducted by state-affiliated actors.
  • 51% of the data breaches involved malware.
  • 66% of malware was installed through malicious email attachments.
  • 73% of the breaches were financially motivated.
  • Industries affected the most: financial institutions (24%), healthcare organizations (15%), public sector entities (12%) with retail and accommodation entities combined to account for 15% of breaches.
  • Ransomware has moved from the 22nd most common variety of malware in the 2014 DBIR to the fifth most common in this year’s data.

While the report is a whopping 76 page PDF, it’s (once again) chock full of graphics and statistics which makes it easier to read than the size of the report indicates.  And, as always, Verizon has some fun with the report (see how many song titles you can find referenced within it).  The report covers everything from breach trends to an industry breakdown to a review of each type of incident classification pattern and even provides a month-by month year in review of key data breach occurrences.

You can download a copy of the report here.  Once again, you can register and download the report or just choose to download the report (which I did).  This is our third year covering the report (here is a link to the post from two years ago) and if you want to check out a comprehensive and interesting report on data breaches over the past year, this remains my favorite report.

So, what do you think?  Have you ever experienced any data breaches, either personally or professionally?  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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Here’s an Opportunity to Learn How to Fix “Pitfalls” and “Potholes” in Your eDiscovery Project: eDiscovery Best Practices

If you’ve ever managed a discovery project for litigation, investigations or audits, you know that “Murphy’s Law” dictates that a number of “pitfalls” and “potholes” can (and will) occur that can derail your project. These issues can add considerable cost to your discovery effort through unexpected rework and also cause you to miss important deadlines or even incur the wrath of a judge for not following accepted rules and principles for discovery.  Thanks to our friends at ACEDS, you can learn more about these “pitfalls” and “potholes” that you can encounter during the discovery life cycle from Information Governance to Production and how to address them to keep your discovery project on track.

Today’s ACEDS webinar at noon CT (1pm ET, 10am PT) is titled Pitfalls and Potholes to Avoid in Your eDiscovery Projects.  I’ll be presenting the webcast with Karen DeSouza, Director of Review Services at CloudNine and we will discuss twenty(!) different “pitfalls” and “potholes” that you can avoid to keep your project on track.  Examples of issues being discussed include:

  • Avoiding the Mistake in Assuming that Discovery Begins When the Case is Filed
  • How to Proactively Address Inadvertent Privilege Productions
  • Up Front Planning to Reduce Review Costs
  • How to Avoid Getting Stuck with a Bad Production from Opposing Counsel
  • Understanding Your Data to Drive Discovery Decisions
  • Minimizing Potential ESI Spoliation Opportunities
  • Ways to Avoid Potential Data Breaches
  • How to Avoid Processing Mistakes that Can Slow You Down
  • Common Searching Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
  • Techniques to Increase Review Efficiency and Effectiveness
  • Checklist of Items to Ensure a Smooth and Accurate Production

To sign up for today’s webcast, click here.  Hope to see you there!

So, what do you think?  Have you encountered “pitfalls” or “potholes” in your discovery projects?  If so, please feel free to join us!  And, as always, 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. eDiscovery Daily 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. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.