Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Trends: The Only Prescription is More Cloud
 

A famous “philosopher” once said, “I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell”.  Sorry, I couldn’t resist…that line always makes me laugh.  😉

It seems that many corporations and law firms “got a fever” and “the only prescription is more cloud”.

As we noted earlier this week, Forrester has forecast that the global Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) “cloud” computing market will grow from 40.7 billion dollars in 2011 to more than 241 billion dollars by 2020 – a six-fold increase.  In addition, the Gartner Group has projected that the cloud computing industry will have revenue of 148.8 billion dollars by 2014 – an even faster growth rate than Forrester’s forecast of 118.7 billion dollars for the same year.

So, there are the predictions.  The question is why?

One reason is the continued trend toward decentralization and globalization of organizations today.  In my recent interview with Jeffrey Brandt, Editor of the Pinhawk Law Technology Daily Digest, he noted that a 250 lawyer firm in Ohio was the 83rd largest law firm in the country several years ago, but now that same sized firm might not make it into the AMLAW 250.  Firms are growing and, as technology shrinks the world for many organizations, the barriers to expansion (even globally) are minimized.  Cloud computing technology is one of the ways in which technology shrinks the world today and enables decentralized organizations share applications and data.

And then, there is the economy.

In the past few years, many corporations and law firms have reduced their IT staffs – in some cases, significantly. Also, while the use of technology has continued to increase “by leaps and bounds”, expenditures for training or upgrading skill sets has lagged behind. Cloud computing technology solves this issue because the burden of keeping up with technology advances is shifted from the organization to the service provider.  As a result, many organizations are finding that “the only prescription for their fever” is “more cloud”.

In the coming days, we will discuss other cloud benefits as well as issues to consider and address before making the move to the cloud.

So, what do you think?  Is your organization storing more data in the cloud?  Does your organization have an effective plan in place for getting to the data when litigation strikes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

As we are off on Monday for the Memorial Day holiday, eDiscoveryDaily would like to thank all veterans and the men and women serving in our armed forces and the sacrifices you make for our country.  Thanks to all of you and your families and have a happy and safe Memorial Day!

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Can’t Be Plaintiff’s Friend on Facebook

In Piccolo v. Paterson, Bucks County, Pa., Common Pleas Court Judge Albert J. Cepparulo denied the motion from the defendant requesting access to the photos of plaintiff Sara Piccolo posted in her Facebook account.

Piccolo filed an action against the defendants after being injured in a one-car accident while a passenger in a car driven by defendant Lindsay Paterson. According to the defense motion, filed by attorneys at Moore & Riemenschneider, Piccolo testified she had a Facebook account and was asked at deposition if the defense counsel could send a “neutral friend request” to Piccolo so that he could review the Facebook postings Piccolo testified she made every day.  Piccolo’s attorney, Benjamin G. Lipman , ultimately denied the request, responding that the “‘materiality and importance of the evidence … is outweighed by the annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and burden to which it exposes'” the plaintiff.

The defense argued that access to Piccolo’s Facebook page would provide necessary and relevant information related to the claims by Piccolo and cited a case, McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. (previously summarized by eDiscoveryDaily here), in which the court ordered the plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defendant’s attorney. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defense had only asked for the pictures Piccolo posted on Facebook and that they had already been provided with “as complete a photographic record of the pre-accident and post-accident condition” of Piccolo.

As a result of the accident in May 2007, Piccolo suffered lacerations to her lip and chin when hit in the face with an airbag. She had 95 stitches to her face and then surgery to repair her scarring six months later. With permanent scars on her face, Piccolo allowed the insurer in 2008 to take photographs of her face and gave the defense 20 photos of her face from the week following the accident and five photos from the months just before the accident.

In Piccolo’s response to the defense motion, Lipman argued that defense counsel had only asked at Piccolo’s deposition about the pictures she posted on Facebook, not any textual postings. He said that the defendant had already been provided “as complete a photographic record of the pre-accident and post-accident condition” of Piccolo as she “could reasonably have a right to expect in this case.”

Judge Cepparulo agreed, ruling with the plaintiff and denying the defense access to Piccolo’s Facebook page in a one-paragraph motion.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the correct call or should he have issued a ruling consistent with McMillen?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Forecast for More Clouds
 

No, eDiscoveryDaily has not begun providing weather forecasts on our site.  Or stock forecasts.

But, imagine if you could invest in an industry that could nearly sextuple in nine years? (i.e., multiply six-fold).

Well, the cloud computing, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), industry may be just the industry for you.  According to a Forrester report from last month, the global cloud computing market will grow from 40.7 billion dollars in 2011 to more than 241 billion dollars by 2020.  That’s a 200 billion dollar increase in nine years.  That’s enough to put anybody “on cloud nine”!

The report titled Sizing The Cloud by Stefan Ried (Principal Analyst, Forrester) and Holger Kisker (Sr. Analyst, Forrester), outlines the different market dynamics for three core layers of cloud computing, as follows:

  • Public Cloud: From 25.5 billion dollars to 159.3 billion dollars by 2020;
  • Virtual Private Cloud: From 7.5 billion dollars to 66.4 billion dollars by 2020;
  • Private Cloud: From 7.8 billion dollars to 159.3 billion dollars by 2020.

Public cloud providers include everything from Facebook and Twitter to Amazon.com and Salesforce.com.  As the name implies, a private cloud is where companies implement their own cloud environment to support its own needs.  A virtual private cloud is simply a private cloud located within a public cloud.

Forrester is not the only analyst firm that expects big things for cloud computing.  The Gartner Group projected that the cloud computing industry will have revenue of 148.8 billion dollars by 2014, even higher than Forrester’s forecast of 118.7 billion dollars for the same year.  Clearly, the benefits of the cloud are causing many organizations to consider it as a viable option for storing and managing critical data.

What does that mean from an eDiscovery perspective?  That means a forecast for more clouds.  If your organization doesn’t have a plan in place for managing, identifying, preserving and collecting data from its cloud solutions, things could get stormy!

So, what do you think?  Is your organization storing more data in the cloud?  Does your organization have an effective plan in place for getting to the data when litigation strikes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Wednesday LTWC Sessions
 

As noted yesterday, LegalTech West Coast 2011 (LTWC) is happening this week and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  There’s still time to check out the show if you’re in the Los Angeles area with a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 70 exhibitors providing information on their products and services, including (shameless plug warning!) my company, Trial Solutions, which is previewing a redesigned version 10 release of our linear review application, OnDemand®, prior to release this Saturday.

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 27 hits.  More eDiscovery sessions happening!  Here are some of the sessions in the main conference tracks:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

E-Discovery and the Cloud

Tom O'Connor, Director, Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center (and previous interviewee on this blog!) will discuss the following:

  • We've all heard of the cloud but are you sure you know what it means? A brief overview
  • New challenges created by the cloud
  • Impact of cloud storage on searchable documents: availability and costs
  • Reasonable discovery practices
  • The basic technical challenges for collecting, reviewing and producing relevant data from the cloud
  • Recent case law
  • Best practices for managing the cloud

Risk & Responsibility vs. Cost Control: Managing E-discovery's Great Balancing Act

Bill Speros, Attorney Consulting in Evidence Management, Speros & Associates LLC will discuss the following:

  • Framing the legal issues–identifying risks and responsibilities for companies and their counsel
  • Negotiations with opposing counsel
  • Custodian selection
  • Data selection
  • Culling options
  • Screen and produce
  • Automated review

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

Social Media and E-Discovery

Joshua A. Engel, Vice President and General Counsel, Lycurgus Group will discuss the following:

  • New challenges created by social media
  • New challenges created by the cloud
  • Impact of cloud storage on searchable documents: availability and costs
  • Reasonable discovery practices
  • Privacy concerns
  • Best practices for social media

Top 5 Ethical Concerns for Lawyers in E-discovery

Brett Burney, Burney Consultants LLC will discuss the following:

  • Appropriately supervise clients' discovery efforts (including potential conflicts around self collection)
  • Avoid conflicts of interest – attorney's and vendor's
  • Appropriately supervise document reviewers
  • Avoid serving as discovery process 30(b)(6) witness
  • Accurately represent clients' data storage paradigm and retrieval/restoration/review expenses

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

Share Point and E-Discovery

Beau Mersereau, Director of Applications, Development and Support, Fish & Richardson, P.C. will discuss the following:

  • An overview of share point and what it means to the legal industry
  • Impact on corporate record keeping
  • More data = more searchable material = higher costs
  • New challenges posed by share point
  • Best practices

The 5 Most Important Things you Need to Consider when Bringing e-Discovery In-house

You have made the decision to in-source certain aspects of the e-Discovery process, or you're considering the potential benefits, but the next step is a challenge. In this session, we will address the five most important things to consider as you take on the responsibilities and risks of e-Discovery internally. We will look through the lenses of both legal and IT, and discuss how best to support the technology and business processes. We also evaluate sourcing models to address the risks. This is an ideal panel for corporate legal departments to attend along with their IT department leaders.

Panelists are: Karen LaFleur, Director of Information Technology and Practice Support, BuchalterNemer, A Professional Corporation; Brett Burney, Burney Consultants LLC; and Lisa K. Clements, Litigation Support Manager, DLA Piper LLP (US).

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

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

eDiscovery Trends: Welcome to LegalTech West Coast 2011!
 

Today is the start of LegalTech® West Coast 2011 (LTWC) and eDiscoveryDaily is here to report about the latest eDiscovery trends being discussed at the show.  Over the next two days, we will provide a description each day of some of the sessions related to eDiscovery to give you a sense of the topics being covered.  If you’re in the Los Angeles area, come check out the show – there are a number of sessions (both paid and free) available and over 70 exhibitors providing information on their products and services, including (shameless plug warning!) my company, Trial Solutions, which is previewing a redesigned version 10 release of our linear review application, OnDemand®, prior to release this Saturday.

Perform a “find” on today’s LTNY conference schedule for “discovery” and you’ll get 22 hits.  So, there is plenty to talk about!  Sessions in the main conference tracks include:

10:30 – 11:45 AM:

eDiscovery in Action: Reducing the Pain and Increasing the Results

Discusses practices to:

  • Increase defensibility, accountability and transparency across your organization
  • Improve efficiency and reduce the volume of growing, uncontrolled information
  • Reduce eDiscovery costs
  • Maximize the return on your technology investments and improve staff productivity
  • Adopt best practices and automate eDiscovery capabilities

Panelists are: Karen LaFleur, Director of Information Technology and Practice Support, BuchalterNemer, A Professional Corporation; Tom O'Connor, Director, Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center (and previous interviewee on this blog!); and Lisa K. Clements, Litigation Support Manager, DLA Piper LLP (US).

Records Policies, Technology and Processes that Optimize Corporate Compliance and Discovery

Topics discussed include:

  • Discover how to maximize efficiency by managing data in a manner that anticipates requests for ESI
  • Learn tips on how to create, implement and monitor sound and defensible legal hold protocol
  • Analyze how significant cost-savings may be achieved through defensible, repeatable execution of that protocol

Panelists are: Wayne Wong, Managing Consultant, Kroll Ontrack; David Yerich, UnitedHealth Group; Ron Best, Director of Legal Information Systems, Munger Tolles & Olson.  Moderator: Dave Schultz, Manager, Legal Technologies, Kroll Ontrack.

2:00 – 3:15 PM:

Exploring Enterprise Search Technology

Covers how to:

  • Understand the totality of electronic information: documents, websites, emails, tweets, audio and video
  • Automate complex information-centric processes by understanding the meaning of electronically stored information
  • Empower organizations to better address their legal, regulatory and business obligations through evolutionary search technology

Panelists are: Ali Shahidi, Director of Knowledge Management, Bingham McCutchen LLP; Scott A. Preston, Chief Information Officer, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Social Media and Discovery: Tales, Trials and Technology

Panelists will:

  • Discuss the impact of social media and the cloud on discovery
  • Hear important questions and implications that must be fully understood before implementing use policies around social media and entrusting data to the cloud
  • Explore data collection, data security, and privacy with regard to social media and the cloud

Panelists are: Wayne Wong, Managing Consultant, Kroll Ontrack; Bianca Dickerson-Willams, CRM, Kroll Ontrack; Jeff Fowler, Counsel, O'Melveny & Myers.  Moderator: Dave Schultz, Manager, Legal Technologies, Kroll Ontrack.

3:45 – 5:00 PM:

Partnering for Success: Inside and Outside Counsel Working Together

Discussion regarding:

  • Linking together inside and outside counsel
  • Improve the early case assessment process Leverage review methods including conceptual search and meaning-based, computer-assisted tagging and coding to reduce cost of review
  • Streamline and simplify the process on a single platform to better comply with the FRCP and help inside and outside counsel avoid sanctions

Panelists are: Jeffrey W. McKenna, Esq., Former Senior Associate, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP; Member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP); Thérèse P. Miller, Of Counsel, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP; Bill Speros, Attorney Consulting in Evidence Management, Speros & Associates LLC.

Next Decade of Document Review: Cheaper, Better, Smarter

Topics include:

  • Consider how document review practices have evolved in the past decade
  • Learn how to stop wasting valuable corporate dollars on chaotic document review by utilizing Intelligent Review Technology (IRT), which can reduce the burden and expense of analysis, review and production
  • Discuss cutting-edge cases that highlight the importance of using technology to conduct faster and cheaper discovery

Panelists are: Andrea Marshall, Consultant, Kroll Ontrack; Ron Best, Director of Legal Information Systems, Munger Tolles & Olson; Jeff Fowler, Counsel, O'Melveny & Myers.  Moderator: Dave Schultz, Manager, Legal Technologies, Kroll Ontrack.

In addition to these, there are other eDiscovery-related sessions today.  For a complete description for all sessions today, click here.

eDiscoveryDaily will also be “tweeting” periodically throughout LTWC (this time I mean it!), so feel free to check out our updates at twitter.com/TrialSolutions.

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

eDiscovery Case Law: Cut and Paste Makes the Cut as Evidence
 

In United States v. Lanzon, 2011 WL 1662901 (11th Cir. 2011), the defendant in a criminal case appealed his conviction and raised the issue of whether he prosecution properly authenticated instant messages cut-and-pasted into a Microsoft Word document.

Detective George Clifton, a member of the Miami–Dade Police Department's Sexual Crimes Bureau, posing as a male living with his girlfriend and his girlfriend's 14–year–old daughter, conducted instant message (IM) online chats with Keith Lanzon that led to Lanzon being arrested and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which provides that:

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

Detective Clifton saved these conversations by copying the IM communications and pasting them into a Microsoft Word document, saving the Word document to a “floppy” disc, for printing in transcripts. While Detective Clifton did not save any of the IM conversations in their original format, he did compare the actual IM "chat screens" to the Word document he had created to verify that the Word document exactly matched the IM conversations.

At trial, the prosecution introduced the Word document with the cut-and-pasted IMs, and Lanzon was convicted.  Lanzon appealed to the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming, inter alia, that the document was improperly admitted, and that the admission of the document violated the Due Process Clause and the Best Evidence Rule.  Lanzon also argued the transcripts violated the rule of completeness in FRE 106 claiming that Detective Clifton failed to include the entire chat transcript, including only the edited portion that supported his case.  FInally, Lanzon claimed that the prosecution failed to properly authenticate the Word document.

The Eleventh Circuit found that Lanzon failed to prove bad faith by the government in failing to preserve the original IMs. The court also rejected Lanzon's rule of completeness argument, finding that “There is no indication that additional parts of the conversation exist.”

As for the failure to authenticate claim, the Eleventh Circuit also rejected that claim, finding that “Evidence may be authenticated through the testimony of a witness with knowledge. FRE 901(b)(1). The proponent need only present enough evidence "to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be.”

A copy of the opinion can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Have you dealt with a case involving evidence cut and pasted into a document?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Usefulness of Facebook’s Self Collection Mechanism
 

We’ve written about Facebook a lot on this blog.  Shortly after this blog was launched, we provided information on Facebook’s subpoena policy.  We’ve also talked about the eDiscovery implications associated with the rollout of Facebook’s new email messaging system, dubbed “Facemail”.  And, just last week, we chronicled a case involving Facebook where they were ordered to produce documents instead of just merely providing access to them.  And, we haven’t even mentioned the latest revelations that Facebook may have secretly hired a PR firm to plant negative stories about Google (oops, we just did!).

But perhaps our most popular post regarding Facebook was regarding the self collection mechanism that they rolled out last October, which we found out about via our LegalTech interview with Craig Ball published back in March after our February interview (Craig also wrote an article about the feature in Law Technology News in February).

Now, another article has been written about the usefulness of Facebook’s self collection mechanism (called “Download Your Information”) in the blog E-Discovery Law Alert, entitled How Useful is Facebook's "Download Your Information" Feature in E-Discovery?, written by Patrick V. DiDomenico.

The author of this article conducted a test by downloading his information via the utility, deleting some information from his Facebook profile – “an email message, some wall posts, comments, photos, and even a friend (not a close friend)” – hopefully, he added the friend back.  Then, he downloaded his information again, every day for four days, with no change for the first three days.  On the fourth day, most of the deleted information disappeared from the download, except the email message (which disappeared when he ran the utility one more time).

The conclusion was that the mechanism “does not appear to ‘look back’ and recover deleted information in the user’s account”.  Thoughts:

  • With no change in the download in the first three days, the author notes that “Facebook did not take a fresh snapshot of my account every day – it just re-downloaded the same file three days in a row”.  He doesn’t mention whether he added any content during this time.  It would be interesting to see if that would force a change.
  • I don’t believe that there is any specific documentation from Facebook as to how it handles additions and deletions and how often the snapshot is updated.  If not, it might behoove them to create some, it might save them some subpoena requests.
  • The author notes that “it is inadvisable for lawyers to rely solely on the Download Your Information feature for discovery of an adversary’s Facebook information” as it “gives no assurance that a litigant’s attempt to delete evidence will be revealed”.  On the other hand, it may be still an appropriate mechanism to use for your own discovery to preserve your own information.  Facebook may also store deleted information on backup tapes, so a subpoena could catch your opponent red-handed if you can justify the discovery of those tapes.  Food for thought.

So, what do you think?  Have you had any Facebook discovery requests in your eDiscovery projects?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Written Litigation Hold Notice Not Required

The Pension Committee case was one of the most important cases of 2010 (or any year, for that matter).  So, perhaps it’s not surprising that it is starting to become frequently cited by those looking for sanction for failure to issue a written litigation hold.

In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC, No. 08-CV-561S(F), (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011), a U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York declined to follow the Pension Committee decision in the Southern District of New York to the extent that the Pension Committee decision held “that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

Steuben Foods alleged that Country Gourmet breached its exclusive supply contract with Steuben when County Gourmet sold all its assets except the supply contract to Campbell Soup. Campbell sought sanctions against Steuben when several emails were not produced by Steuben and Steuben conceded that its litigation hold procedure had not included a written notice. Steuben’s corporate counsel had orally directed each of eight managers and corporate officers to identify all electronically stored information, including paper documents and email communications, pertaining to Country Gourmet or Campbell and not to discard or delete or otherwise destroy such documents pending the litigation.

Campbell pointed to the Pension Committee decision, Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), “in which the court found that the absence of a written litigation hold notice supported its conclusion that plaintiffs had been grossly negligent in their obligations to preserve relevant electronically stored documents and that plaintiffs’ document production failures, coupled with the absence of a timely written litigation hold, permitted the inference that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost as a result.”

The court declined to infer from the absence of a written litigation hold, as the Pension Committee court did, that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost:

“Accordingly, the court in this case declines to hold that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

The court noted that the relatively small size of Steuben with 400 employees “lends itself to a direct oral communication of the need to preserve documents relevant to Plaintiff’s case” and was a reason “why a written litigation hold is not essential to avoid potential sanctions for spoliation.” In any event, according to the court, Campbell was not prejudiced by any failure of Steuben to produce email because Country Gourmet provided copies of the email to Campbell and Campbell could show no prejudice resulting from any claimed negligence of Steuben in not having a written litigation hold.

So, what do you think?  Should a written litigation hold be required in every case?  Would that have made a difference in this one?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
 

Does anybody really know what time it is?  Does anybody really care?

OK, it’s an old song by Chicago (back then, they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority).  But, the question of what time it really is has a significant effect on how eDiscovery is handled.

Time Zone: In many litigation cases, one of the issues that should be discussed and agreed upon is the time zone to apply to the produced files.  Why is it a big deal?  Let’s look at one example:

A multinational corporation has offices from coast to coast and potentially responsive emails are routinely sent between East Coast and West Coast offices.  If an email is sent from a party in the West Coast office at 10 PM on June 30, 2005 and is received by a party in the East Coast office at 1 AM on July 1, 2005, and the relevant date range is from July 1, 2005 thru December 31, 2006, then the choice of time zones will determine whether or not that email falls within the relevant date range.  The time zone is based on the workstation setting, so they could actually be in the same office when the email is sent (if someone is traveling).

Usually the choice is to either use a standard time zone for all files in the litigation – such as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or the time zone where the producing party is located – or to use the time zone associated with each custodian, which means that the time zone used will depend on where the data came from.  It’s important to determine the handling of time zones up front in cases where multiple time zones are involved to avoid potential disputes down the line.

Which Date to Use?: Each email and efile has one or more date and time stamps associated with it.  Emails have date/time sent, as well as date/time received.  Efiles have creation date/time, last modified date/time and even last printed date/time.  Efile creation dates do not necessarily reflect when a file was actually created; they indicate when a file came to exist on a particular storage medium, such as a hard drive. So, creation dates can reflect when a user or computer process created a file. However, they can also reflect the date and time that a file was copied to the storage medium – as a result, the creation date can be later than the last modified date.  It’s common to use date sent for Sent Items emails and date received for Inbox emails and to use last modified date for efiles.  But, there are exceptions, so again it’s important to agree up front as to which date to use.

So, what do you think?  Have you had any date disputes in your eDiscovery projects?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: What Are the Skeletons in Your ESI Closet?
 

At eDiscoveryDaily, we try not to re-post articles or blog posts from other sources.  We may reference them, but we usually try to add some commentary or analysis to provide a unique spin on the topic.  However, I read a post Thursday on one of the better legal blogs out there – Ride the Lightning from Sharon Nelson – that was a guest post by Jim McGann, VP of Information Discovery at Index Engines that I thought was well done and good information for our readers.  Jim has been interviewed by eDiscoveryDaily here and here and always has terrific insight on ESI issues.  You can click here to read the post directly on Ride the Lightning or simply read below.

Law firms and corporations alike tend to keep data storage devices well beyond what their compliance requirements or business needs actually dictate.  These so-called “skeletons in the closet” pose a major problem when the entity gets sued or subpoenaed. All that dusty data is suddenly potentially discoverable. Legal counsel can be proactive and initiate responsible handling of this legacy data by defining a new, defensible information governance process.

  1. Understand all data sources. The first choice when faced with an ESI collection is to look at current online network data. However, many other sources of email and files exist on corporate networks, sources that may be more defensible and even cost effective to collect from, including offsite storage typically residing on backup tapes. Tape as a collection source has been overlooked because it was historically difficult and expensive to collect from legacy backup tapes.
  2. Get proactive with legal requirements. Defining what ESI data should be kept and placed on litigation hold and what can be purged are the first steps in a proactive strategy. These legal requirements will allow clients to put a policy in place to save specific content, certain custodians and intellectual property so that it is identifiable and ready for on demand discovery.
  3. Understand technology limitations. Only use tools that index all the content, and don’t change any of the metadata. Some older search solutions compromise the indexing process, and this may come to haunt you in the end.
  4. Become a policy expert. As new technology comes on the market, it tends to improve and strengthen the discovery process. Taking the time to understand technology trends allows you to stay one step ahead of the game and create a current defensible collection process and apply policy to it.

So, what do you think?  Do you have “skeletons” in your ESI closet?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.