![]() |
|
|||
|
I attended West LEGALworks Thursday and Friday. The Judges' panel had a lot to say about AB 5 and e-Discovery in general, so I thought I'd share...
e-Discovery Insights: Dancing 'Geek to Geek' - Judges' Panel Weighs in on California AB 5, 'Train Wrecks' and the 'Mayflower' Last edited by Skates; 02-28-2009 at 05:53 PM. Reason: correct spelling error |
|
|||
|
Skates, you presented a number of interesting nuggets in your coverage of the judges panel discussion on e-discovery.
Impeachment Log For example, the impeachment log idea is intriguing. You wrote: A major issue is how to handle privileged documents. For example, I don't want to turn over to the other side a document that contains information I'm going to use to impeach my adversary. That's easier when you're talking about a paper document, but not so easy when the particular statement you need is buried in a 20-page email thread between multiple custodians that contains other relevant statements.Expense of E-Discovery I agree with Judge Wistrich's concern about the cost of e-discovery increasing. You noted that he is "concerned" that e-discovery is going to end up adding another layer - experts - to the front-end of the process, further bogging it down.It's bad enough for parties that lawyers are so expensive. Now add e-discovery experts as a routine cost of litigation and lawsuits become a serious problem for those without much money. It was very interesting to read the various comments by judges. Thanks for the excellent report. |
|
|||
|
Thanks again, David.
The "Impeachment Log", from an evidence standpoint, was definitely 'exciting'. Also, expenses are a double-edge sword. On the one hand, none of us want to run up costs. On the other, I'm the guy they'll be paying! ![]() Honestly, my "selling point" to my clients is that with me, they get two-for-one - and in these tough economic times, that's a big deal. |
![]() |
| Tags |
| ab 5, california, e-discovery, judges, legalworks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|