A story of smartphones, drugs, and toys …… read about the winners..and the…

Rounding Up the 10 Biggest IP Litigation Wins of 2011

Background:

Law.com – Rounding Up the 10 Biggest IP Litigation Wins of 2011
Source: original article
Author: David
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

Litigators have an interest in making sure that, despite all the obstacles presented by the American system of justice, the value provided their clients by litigating a dispute exceeds the costs. However, in regards to e-discovery, federal and state codes now require the preservation and production of electronic data in all its various forms, with immense costs.

If one is not careful, the costs of electronic discovery alone may well ensure that any victory obtained in the courtroom will be entirely pyrrhic to your client. Yet, failure to reasonably abide by one’s e-discovery obligations may lead to more costs later, in the form of motion practice, additional required discovery, and even possible sanctions.

Several organizations, such as the ACTL and The Sedona Conference are working on developing codes and standards that will bring some order and direction to the e-discovery process. Likewise, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure are considering changes to the rules of e-discovery that may lighten the litigator’s burden. These proposed fixes, however welcome, address symptoms, not the underlying problem.

It is not novel that wherever there is information that may be relevant to a dispute, the principles of an adversary system of justice require that information be captured, reviewed and produced to the other side. What is new is the rate of technological change in this information age, and the simple fact that companies are generating more information than ever before.

Viewed in this way, it seems that the problem of electronic discovery might actually be a symptom of a larger problem of digital information management.

Accordingly, the most effective solution is one that addresses the information overload at its source, through a company’s adoption of responsible and effective enterprise information management principles. 

Companies adopting technologies that allow them to effectively manage their information so that less is retained, and that which is retained can be seamlessly collected, preserved, and reviewed, are companies that will obtain both a competitive and litigation advantage that could save the company millions in legal and technological costs. Here, the old saying “less is more” holds true, because companies that keep less information have less information to identify, collect, preserve, review, and analyze.

Of course, selecting the right solution and synchronizing the solution with a company’s policies is critical. It requires crossing the gap between the technical jungle and the legal morass to deliver a real solution. Today, organizations seemingly keep information that has no legal, economic or competitive benefit, because the policies they have are not effectuated by the technologies they have acquired.

Large companies have achieved economies of scale by hiring “discovery counsel,” be it an individual dedicated to helping manage the discovery portion of all litigations or outside counsel appointed to serve as National Discovery Counsel. A benefit of retaining such counsel is the company develops a deeper knowledge of the company’s information systems, and that synchronicity between the technology and the law helps lower the company’s legal bill.

Background:

Cost Effective Electronic Discovery in Litigation
Source: original article
Author: Daniel Garrie
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

In a recent case in California, Facebook account holders filed a putative class action lawsuit against Facebook, alleging that Facebook knowingly forwarded personal information to online advertisers without its users’ consent. In In re Facebook Privacy Litigation, Plantiffs asserted eight causes of action against Facebook, including violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, et seq. and various California laws (both statutory and common law), and all were dismissed.

At issue was the mechanism that sends a “Referrer Header” to an advertiser when a Facebook user clicks on an advertisement posted on the website. Plaintiffs asserted that when an advertiser receives a “Referrer Header” from Facebook, which indicates the webpage address the user was viewing before clicking on the advertisement, the advertiser is able to obtain substantial information about a user, including the user’s name, gender and picture. The court explained that in sending these “Referrer Headers,” Facebook “shares users’ personal information with third-party advertisers without users’ knowledge or consent, in violation of [Facebook’s] own policies.”

The court looked closely at the following language of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3)(a), which provides in part that an entity:

providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

Citing the language of the statute, the court found that Plaintiffs could not state a claim under the Wiretap Act under two potential interpretations of Plaintiffs’ allegations. As to the first interpretation, the court found that Plaintiffs could not set forth a claim because the communication was “one from a user to Defendant” and therefore, Defendant could not be held liable for divulging the communication. Similarly, the court found that Plaintiffs also failed to set forth a claim under the second interpretation because the communication was a “communication from a user to an advertiser,” making the advertiser the “addressee or intended recipient.” As with the first interpretation, Defendant could not be held liable for divulging that communication.

Pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a), “an entity providing an electronic communication service to the public ‘shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service.’” Nonethless, an electronic communication service provider is permitted to reveal the contents of a communication to “an addresee or intended recipient of such communication” or “with the lawful consent” of an addressee or intended recipient of a communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(1) and (3). As with the analysis of the Wiretap Act, the court found that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the SCA under either interpretation of Plaintiffs’ claims because Defendant was allowed to divulge the communications to the advertisers. Although the court ultimately granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to replead their allegations, the court’s initial ruling suggests that Plaintiffs will have their hands full convincing the court that this litigation should progress past the pleading stage.

Scott J. Etish is an Associate on the Gibbons E-Discovery Task Force.

Background:

In re Facebook Privacy Litigation – Uphill Battle for Plaintiffs
Source: original article
Author: Scott J. Etish
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

18 November 2011 – In a digital environment where access to information is faster, communication is more reliable, and logistics are more sophisticated than ever before, today’s companies are increasingly operating on a truly global scale. However, accompanying this trend in globalisation is the rise in cross-border litigation, arbitration and regulatory investigations. Companies must now litigate and respond to regulatory matters in multiple jurisdictions, each with its own unique legal requirements and cultural nuances.

In a recent Metropolitan Corporate Counsel article, Drew Macaulay, Director of Business Development at First Advantage Litigation Consulting, examines the hurdles involved with the retrieval, review and production of electronic information in cross-border matters and the potential solutions that corporations and their advisors can employ to overcome these challenges.  

For the full post click here.

Background:

Cross-Border Litigation And Investigation: Overcoming Legal, Cultural And Technical Hurdles
Source: original article
Author: posselist
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

The “Dos” and “Don’ts” of litigation hold notices were discussed at the Fifth Annual Gibbons E-Discovery Conference on November 3, 2011. The distinguished panel included the Honorable John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J. (Ret.), the Director and Chair of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force Mark Sidoti, and Melissa DeHonney, an associate in the Gibbons Business & Commercial Litigation Department and member of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force. The panel’s PowerPoint presentation, which includes a model litigation hold notice, can be found here.

The panel discussed the anatomy of a good litigation hold letter and walked the audience through best practices for drafting each section. Most importantly, the panel stressed that there is a difference between using a “template,” which is then tailored for a particular case, versus a boilerplate form letter, which is never appropriate. The panel emphasized the importance of recognizing that the target audience may not be familiar with legalese. Some other essentials that the panel discussed include:

• identifying an appropriate contact source that custodians can turn to;
• making sure the hold is directed to the proper recipients;
• tailoring the preservation instructions to fit the client’s information technology structure;
• requiring recipients to acknowledge that they received and will comply with the hold;
• and including an explanation of why preservation is important and the consequences of failing to preserve

It was discussed that preservation does not end with a good litigation hold letter, but that consistent follow-up is also required to effect the ultimate purpose of the litigation hold. The panel noted that this is an evolving process which may require an additional litigation hold with revised and/or new categories.

This panel moved beyond the nuts and bolts of drafting litigation holds and discussed their standing in current case law, including the consequences of a failure to issue a written litigation hold, the discoverability of litigation holds and the exceptions to the “privilege” that might otherwise attach to them. Recognizing that no party’s preservation efforts are ever going to be perfect when judged after the fact, the panel recommended that litigants should always be prepared to explain why their preservation efforts were reasonable when undertaken and maintain a solid contemporaneous record of what they are doing to preserve documents.

Elizabeth Ann Fitzwater is Counsel to the Gibbons E-Discovery Task Force.

Background:

The “Dos” and “Don’ts” of Litigation Hold Notices: Deconstructing the Effective Litigation Hold Notice
Source: original article
Author: Elizabeth Ann Fitzwater
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

Fulbright & Jaworski has conducted their Litigation Trends survey for nearly the past decade and the results are always interesting since they tend to capture the mindset of inside counsel and litigators as they anticipate the upcoming year.  In their 8th Annual Litigation Trends Survey, Fulbright noted that 92% of U.S. respondents predict that litigation will either increase or stay the same in the upcoming year.  This trend bodes well for players in the litigation services and eDiscovery sectors, and confirms the counter cyclical nature of the industry.  Breaking down the perceived increases across industry verticals, the Survey noted that the biggest anticipated jumps were in the technology, financial services, healthcare and insurance sectors.  Meanwhile energy (the leading sector from the prior year) was one of the few that predicted a decrease.

Going behind the scenes, there were a number of factors that caused respondents to predict litigation increases.  First and foremost, respondents indicated that “stricter regulation was the number one reason” for the increases, particularly with insurance, financial services, health care and retail sectors.  These concerns around regulatory compliance have been increasingly keeping GCs and corporate boards awake as the governance climate continues to heat up.  This regulation driver showed a demonstrable increase with 46% of all respondents having retained outside counsel to assist with regulatory proceedings, up from 37% in the prior year.  The Survey noted that U.S. companies facing a regulatory investigation were most likely to be under pressure from the DOJ (27%), State Attorney General (24%), OSHA (18%), the EPA (16%) and U.S. Attorney (13%).  Also on the regulatory front, U.S. respondents have increasingly begun to recognize the potential jurisdictional reach of the U.K. Bribery Act, with 25% of U.S. companies stating that they have already conducted a review of existing procedures in preparation for implementation.

In addition to managing risk, most in-house counsel are keenly concerned with controlling litigation costs.  The good news here is that associated costs are predicted to be generally flat.  Yet, eDiscovery remained the largest category targeted for increased spending, with 18% of respondents making this their top priority.  Interestingly, though, large enterprises seem to have been doing a good job of getting eDiscovery expenses under control (likely by taking expensive elements of the EDRM in-house), with these expenses declining among the largest companies, from 42% last year to 24% this year.

The Survey noted that the use of cloud computing has gained speed, with 34% of all public companies using the cloud.  And yet, only 40% of those companies using cloud computing have had “to preserve and/or collect data from the cloud in connection with actual or threatened litigation, disputes or investigations.”  This number appears curiously light, and it should definitely rise during the upcoming year as the plaintiff’s bar gets more savvy about this relatively new source of responsive electronically stored information (ESI).

On the narrower eDiscovery front, the Survey honed in on newer issues like cooperation.  Here, the Survey noted that this Sedona-sponsored concept still hasn’t completely taken hold, with nearly 40% of all respondents claiming that “their company has not made the effort to be more transparent or cooperative” due to a litigation strategy of “defending on all fronts.”  This area appears particularly muddled, with one third saying their previous attempts haven’t been reciprocated and another quarter feeling that their company was already transparent.

All in all,  the 2011 Fulbright Litigation Trends Survey notes trends that appear to be largely in line with the primary drivers of (1) managing risk and (2) lowering litigation costs.  On the risk side, compliance with an increasingly complex regulatory environment is offsetting any potential lull in the litigation environment.  And, on the cost side, eDiscovery continues to be a hot button issue, particularly with the relatively new challenges associated with ESI distributed on social media, cloud computing and mobile sources.

Background:

Fulbright’s 2011 Litigation Trends Report Predicts a Constant Litigation Pace and a Swell of Regulatory Investigations
Source: original article
Author: Dean Gonsowski
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

Have you ever felt daunted by the prospect of issuing a litigation hold? If so, you are not alone — particularly in today’s dynamic legal environment, where even judges within the same judicial district disagree as to what is required to satisfy the duty to preserve evidence and avoid spoliation sanctions. Please join us at Gibbons Fifth Annual E-Discovery Conference, where we will deconstruct an effective litigation hold notice paragraph-by-paragraph, explaining why each element is included and how to tailor hold notices to any litigation. We will also explain recent developments in this area of the law, which you can draw on to position your company to effectively issue and administer litigation holds, avoid game-changing spoliation sanctions and return the focus to litigating matters on the merits.

We are privileged to have the Honorable John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J. (Ret.), joining this discussion, marking this esteemed jurist’s third year participating in the firm’s annual e-discovery conference. Joining Judge Hughes will be Gibbons Director and Chair of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force, Mark Sidoti, and Melissa DeHonney, an associate in Gibbons Business & Commercial Litigation Department who is also a member of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force and an editor of this blog.

If you would like to attend but have not yet registered, please RSVP to (973) 596-4452 or rsvp@gibbonslaw.com. We look forward to seeing you at the conference!

Background:

Gearing Up for the Litigation Hold Panel Discussion at Gibbons Fifth Annual E-Discovery Conference
Source: original article
Author: Gibbons P.C.
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

By title="Peter Coons Bio" href="http://www.d4discovery.com/about/management-team/peter-coons/">Peter Coons, Senior Vice President, Computer Forensics and Collections Expert, D4

href="http://www.d4discovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/36777pycpbvn85d_gavel.jpg"> class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-3902" title="Model Order suggested for patent review" src="http://www.d4discovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/36777pycpbvn85d_gavel-300x225.jpg" alt="Model Order suggested for patent review" width="300" height="225" />In late September 2011, at the Eastern District of Texas Judicial Conference, href="http://www.patentlyo.com/files/raderstateofpatentlit.pdf">Chief Judge Randall R. Rader introduced a Model Order to be used in patent litigation.

Of interest to me are the items in the Order that addressed electronic discovery. Rader stated that one reason for the Model Order was to keep costs in check. His speech included the comment that “in one 2010 report, the Federal Judicial Center determined that Intellectual Property cases had costs almost 62% higher, all else equal….”. He continued, “I saw one analysis that concluded that .0074% of the documents produced actually made their way onto the trial exhibit list—less than one document in ten thousand. And for all the thousands of appeals I’ve evaluated, email appears even more rarely as relevant evidence.”

The Model was the brain child of an eDiscovery committee that comprised judges from three district courts: Chief Judge James Ware (N.D. Cal.), Judge Virginia Kendall (N.D. Ill.), and Magistrate Judge Chad Everingham (E.D. Tex.).

There are three main themes in the eDiscovery; metadata, e-mail, and inadvertent waiver of privilege.

I just wanted to say a few words about my title="Metadata Whitepaper written by Peter Coons" href="http://www2.d4discovery.com/l/6612/2011-08-05/1BMCZ" target="_blank">old friend, metadata.

style="text-decoration: underline;">Metadata

Item #5 in the Order – “General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include metadata absent a showing of good cause. However, fields showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be included in the production. “

style="text-decoration: underline;">My thoughts on metadata: Is the above consistent with the Sedona Conference and its recommendations on metadata? /> Sedona Principle 12 initially stated that “[u]nless it is material to resolving the dispute, there is no obligation to preserve and produce metadata absent agreement of the parties or order of the court.”

The current Sedona Principle 12 was revised. It now provides that the form of production should take into account “the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.”

I don’t believe all attorneys actually know what metadata is and how it can be used. I wonder how many eDiscovery practitioners the eDiscovery committee consulted with prior to coming up with metadata #5. The Order states that metadata, absent good cause, is not needed. The exception is fielded data with recipients, times the document was sent or received, etc.

So they give two examples, but are there additional metadata elements that may be relevant in a patent case? What about the time a document was created, accessed, or modified? What about the metadata in a document management system that tracks who accessed a document and when? Or more importantly the audit trail information that identifies when it was uploaded to the DMS or when it was modified.

Forget about databases. One could argue that each element of a record is metadata. So if that is true then I guess the Model Order would recommend that none of it has to be produced.

There is no mention of metadata in the FRCP, but what about Rule 34 where it states:

March Madness has been electric in Richmond, Virginia.  Two Cinderella teams in the Sweet Sixteen.  Now, one in the Final Four.  Has that happened to any other city the size of Richmond?  I didn’t bother to Google it because I really didn’t want to know.  It is enough that it happened to us.  The University of Richmond Spiders lost a tough game against Kansas, but the college basketball nation has been blown away by the VCU Rams.  No matter what happens on Saturday night against Butler (another great team, but not really a Cinderella anymore), Richmond, Virginia will be rockin’.

I confess that I’ve not been a stalwart fan of our hometown heroes, and saw my first game the other night in the round of 32, when VCU shamed Purdue and staked its claim as a true Cinderella in 2011 (take that, Mr. Vitale).  What amazed me the most was that this is not a team with a Jimmer Fredette, a player long in the national spotlight that can nearly carry a team on his shoulders.  This is a team.  Certainly, we’ve got some great players.  I love Joey Rodriguez – fast, athletic, incredible vision, completely unselfish.  But what makes this team win is that it plays as a team.

So, what’s the hook, you ask?  What in the world can Richmond’s Cinderella teams have to do with e-discovery?  The answer, as with many of my posts, lies in my manufacturing past.  Having worked in a factory, one learns to appreciate specialization.  To create a semiconductor chip or a computer module, one does not dump a pile of parts (or chemicals) onto a table, grab an engineer or technician, and say, “get to work.”  Manufacturing is the perfect example of specialization at its best.  All of the raw materials and component parts staged in perfect array; complex automated equipment performing singular tasks in perfect harmony; expertly trained operators, technicians and engineers performing discrete tasks; each and every participant in the process critical and interdependent.  That is teamwork based on specialization.

Then I became a litigator and was exposed to the myth that a great lawyer can do everything.  Sure, there are some excellent general practitioners out there, writing wills, handling a criminal case or two, forming a business, and settling a divorce.  But every one of those generalists knows where his or her limits lie, and, when the stakes are high, they’ll refer their best clients out to a specialist.  Personally, I started out as a generalist, and many associates do, dabbling in commercial, IP and products liability litigation.  Over the years, I specialized, focusing on products, and then on tires, and then on discovery, ultimately dedicating my career to e-discovery.  I would never think to counsel someone on an  irrevocable trust or handle a criminal matter.   Yet, time and time again, I will see attorney profiles listing, among a number of other specialties, e-discovery.

We have passed the point where e-discovery can be thought of as a sideline.  Determining how to extract information from a SQL database in a “reasonably usable format” complete with key metadata is a far cry from thumbing through file folders for important e-mails.  You might not need a specialist to notice white-out on a memorandum, but you’d have no trouble hiring a handwriting expert to authenticate a signature.  Understanding whether electronically stored information (ESI) is in its original condition is closer to authenticating handwriting than spotting correction tape.

Just like the VCU Rams, a litigation team functions best when the members focus on their respective strengths, operate unselfishly to accomplish the joint objective, leaving aside personal considerations in favor of the client’s best interests.  I think I would have been an excellent trial attorney had my career taken that path.  But you should not hire an e-discovery lawyer to voir dire your jury or cross-examine the critical witness in your most important case.  When it comes to e-discovery, however, you definitely need a Joey Rodriguez on the team.

Dennis Kiker,
dennis.kiker@leclairryan.com

Background:

E-Discovery Counsel: A Key Member of the Litigation Team
Source: original article
Author: Dennis Kiker
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.

We have all been there. The other day, I found myself dutifully inching along in the right-hand lane that leads to the freeway entrance, waiting for that moment when we can finally stop riding the brakes and get moving down the road. And, then, some wise guy zips along in the center lane and squeezes in just before the freeway entrance. Or a whole series of wise guys. Well, there I was, and I caught myself playing the game – keeping as close as possible to the car in front of me so as to eliminate any possibility of creating a merge point for one of the people trying to avoid the wait that the rest of us responsible citizens had endured. I found myself gripping the steering wheel a bit tighter, leaning forward a bit, my blood pressure rising with the tension.

Ordinarily, I try to avoid that behavior. Honestly. Most days, I recognize that the fractions of a second that I save by staying one car length ahead of the interloper amount to very little compared to the stress that accompanies my success. Most days, I’d just as soon pay more attention to NPR and let everyone else get worked up. But not always. Sometimes, I catch myself joining the crowd, losing touch with my rational side and fighting for those fractional seconds. I am reminded on such occasions of a lesson I learned from a mechanical engineer once while driving him to the Ontario, California airport. As we fought through the routine heavy traffic, with the stream of vehicles speeding up and coming to a complete stop at regular intervals, I expressed my surprise that people could not just keep moving along at a consistent pace. The engineer explained something called queuing theory, which makes it virtually impossible for any large body of objects (cars, marbles, fish, you name it) to move through a constrained space at a consistent speed. It is a complicated mathematical theory that I am neither equipped nor inclined to explain in detail, but, essentially, the point is that imperfections in the process will result in changes in the velocity of individual elements of the group, to which the remaining elements must respond. In the case of freeway traffic, the imperfection might be a pothole that causes one car to minutely reduce speed or veer slightly. Cars behind that one will react, usually by braking slightly, and the effect is the inevitable speed-up, slow-down cycle we all love so much. Given the constraints of the system, it is going to happen no matter what any individual driver does, so there is no point getting all worked up about it. All you can do is identify the system constraints (e.g., number of lanes) and attempt to correct them. But, even then, given a sufficient volume of traffic, the phenomenon will occur.

And, yes, this makes me think about e-discovery. Doesn’t everything? So often, I see attorneys focusing on the wrong things, maneuvering to gain any possible advantage on every minute detail, failing to recognize the cost and inefficiency of such behavior. It happens all the time. Just the other day, in a relatively small litigation, an otherwise competent, intelligent attorney demonstrated the type of tunnel vision that drives up litigation costs and makes people crazy. This gentleman, by all appearances, understands e-discovery. He provided very detailed (and reasonable) instructions regarding his desired form of production in his requests for production. Among other things, he requested that information maintained in a database be in an Excel (.xls) file. Okay. The computer on which we downloaded the data had Microsoft Office 2010 installed. So, the file that we actually produced was in .xlsx format, which is the default for Excel 2010. Yes, you know what’s coming. A motion to compel on the grounds that we had not produced the data in the requested format. Allegedly, the .xlsx file was not reasonably usable because the plaintiff could not import it directly into the version of FoxPro her attorney was using. Of course, we provided the gentleman with a new copy of the extract (by doing exactly what he could have done – saving the file down to Excel 2003 format). But, we also had to spend time and our client’s money on addressing this issue in our response to the motion to compel. Very productive use of everyone’s time, don’t you think?

Too many lawyers behave in litigation like I did on my morning commute the other day. On occasion, I am guilty as well – as a driver and as a litigator. But there is a lot to be said for merging. Cooperation in achieving accomplishing a mutual objective will ensure the lowest possible cost and the highest possible efficiency for everyone involved. I should probably cite the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation here, but I am already way over my usual word count, so I will just stop here and let you get by.

Dennis Kiker,
dennis.kiker@leclairryan.com

Background:

E-Discovery Traffic Control – Merging on the Litigation Superhighway
Source: original article
Author: Dennis Kiker
Categories: Electronic discovery, e-discovery, ediscovery

This e-discovery news is syndicated from e-discovery websites and blogs that make their feed available via RSS. Contact us to have your RSS feed added or removed.