In April 2009, Chief Justice Rabner of the Supreme Court of New Jersey appointed the Supreme Court Special Committee on Discovery in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Matters (hereinafter the Committee).  The Committee “was appointed to recommend solutions to a variety of issues that had arisen as the result of the increasing use of electronically stored information in criminal cases.”  After significant investigation, the Committee has recently reported its recommendations, which include both proposed amendments to several rules as well as “non-rule recommendations.”

Issues identified for serious consideration by the Committee included many that are familiar to practitioners on the “civil side,” such as problems with incompatibility between the format of production and the equipment/software available to defense counsel, discovery related costs, and discovery-related delays as well as problems that are unique to criminal cases, including issues related to attorney-client visitation in county jails, for example.  With so many issues to consider, the resulting report and recommendations are significant and too sweeping to succinctly summarize.  For those who want to learn more, however, a copy of the

New Jersey Considers e-Discovery Rules for Criminal Cases
Source: original article
Author: K&L Gates
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.

It seems every day brings something new in this case.  Today we report that on Monday, May 14, Magistrate Judge Peck entered an order staying MSL’s production of ESI, “pending Judge Carter’s decision on plaintiffs’ motions for collective action certification and to amend their complaint.”  That order is available here.

Also of interest, on Tuesday, May 15, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied a motion from Richard E. Flamm, Esq. to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  The motion, the underlying amicus brief, and the court’s order are available below:

• Notice of Motion & Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification

• Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification

• Order (denying motion)

Background:

More Happenings in Da Silva Moore
Source: original article
Author: K&L Gates
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.

On March 2, 2012, we reported on Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck’s February 24, 2012 decision in Monique Da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Civ. No. 11-1279 (ALC)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), wherein Judge Peck issued the first judicial opinion approving the use of predictive coding "in appropriate cases." You can read that blog post here. On April 25, 2012, District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. rejected plaintiffs’ bid to overturn that decision, and cleared the way for the use of computer-assisted ESI review in this case and others. Monique Da Silva Moore, et al., v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, Civ. No. 11-1279 (ALC)(AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2012).

Judge Peck originally approved the use of predictive coding in Da Silva Moore based on several factors, including the parties’ theoretical agreement with the concept, the need to review an enormous data set in excess of 3 million documents, the superiority of computer-assisted review over the alternatives (manual review or keyword searches), the need for cost effectiveness and proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b)(2)(C) and the “transparent” process defendants proposed. But he did so over plaintiffs’ continued objections, which were detailed in the papers plaintiffs submitted to District Judge Carter on February 22, 2012, and which Judge Peck essentially disposed of in his opinion issued two days later.

When defendants responded to plaintiffs’ objections on March 7, 2012, plaintiffs’ cried foul and requested leave of District Judge Carter to respond. In sum, plaintiffs contended Judge Peck’s written analysis went well-beyond the rationale he articulated from the bench at the February 8, 2012 hearing on which his opinion was based and, further, relied on materials not previously discussed or referenced by the parties. Plaintiffs also objected to the inequity of allowing defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ objections after having the advantage of digesting Judge Peck’s decision. District Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ request, and plaintiffs filed further detailed objections to defendants’ protocol and Judge Peck’s rulings. For good measure, plaintiffs also informally asked Judge Peck (by letter) to recuse himself from the case based largely on his participation and comments at e-discovery conferences discussing his support for the use of predictive coding. Judge Peck refused and, in his April 2, 2012 Order, defended himself against plaintiffs’ accusations of bias and specifically cautioned plaintiffs to "re-think their scorched earth approach" to the litigation. Judge Peck also predicted his admonition would fall on deaf ears, and it did; on April 13, 2012, plaintiffs formally moved for his recusal, which is pending.

Against this background, District Judge Carter clearly had much to contend with in reviewing and considering plaintiffs’ objections. The Court began by summarizing plaintiffs’ arguments, to the effect that Judge Peck’s decision was erroneous and contrary to law because the ESI protocol lacks "generally accepted reliability standards" and, as such, its use violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and Fed R. Evid. 702, and that Judge Peck failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and therefore adopted the protocol on an insufficient record and further went beyond the record by considering documents not discussed in the parties initial submissions. Although Judge Carter next proceeded to set forth the case law establishing the applicable "highly deferential standard of review", the Court might just as well have started or even abbreviated its discussion with the concluding sentence of its opinion: "[t]he Court reminds the parties that it affords Judge Peck’s non-dispositive rulings great deference and that magistrate judges generally have broad latitude with respect to discovery issues."

Judge Carter adopted Judge Peck’s rulings, characterizing them as well-reasoned and generally praising their consideration of the "potential advantages and pitfalls" of predictive coding software. Rejecting plaintiffs’ objections, the Court specifically noted that the protocol contained "standards for measuring the reliability of the process" and that "the protocol builds in levels of participation by Plaintiffs." The Court highlighted plaintiffs’ ability to raise concerns about the relevance of culled documents with Judge Peck before final production and found "insufficient evidence" to conclude that the parties’ use of predictive coding software would deprive plaintiffs of "liberal discovery."

The Court also found plaintiffs’ reliability arguments "premature" and rejected their arguments regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing, explaining that "if the method appears unreliable as the litigation continues and the parties continue to dispute its effectiveness," Judge Peck could hold the evidentiary hearing later to address those issues. Judge Carter concluded the point by noting that "if the method provided in the protocol does not work or if the sample size is indeed too small to properly apply the technology, the Court will not preclude Plaintiffs from receiving relevant information, but to call the method unreliable at this stage is speculative." In concluding his review, Judge Carter observed "[t]here simply is no review tool that guarantees perfection" and specifically identified the risks inherent in manual and keyword searching. Ultimately finding no basis to disturb Judge Peck’s findings that the use of predictive coding software was "more appropriate than keyword searching" in "this particular case," Judge Carter upheld Judge Peck’s rulings and denied plaintiffs’ objections.

In our initial blog posting discussing Judge Peck’s decision, we indicated that Da Silva Moore is significant because it opened the door for parties to consider the use of computer assisted review in appropriate cases without the fear that a party or judge will resist based on a perceived lack of acceptance. Judge Carter’s adoption of Judge Peck’s rulings constitutes a big, bold underlining of that statement, and regardless of the outcome of any further proceedings, we can expect a great deal of interest in and use of predictive coding technology going forward.

Phillip J. Duffy is a Director on the Gibbons E-Discovery Task Force.

Background:

Predictive Coding Upheld by District Court: Judge Carter Endorses Judge Peck’s Approval of Computer-Assisted ESI Review
Source: original article
Author: Phillip J. Duffy
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 Ryan Peterson, J.D., R.C.A., Discovery Engineer

I was having a conversation with a close friend of mine the other day who also happens to be in the E-Discovery industry. We got to talking about how to treat document families for the various stages of processing, review and production. That conversation got me thinking that while most vendors and E-Discovery attorneys treat this as basic knowledge, if you don’t practice in this area, you may not know the correct terminology, or what you should insist upon with your vendors. I decided I would write about the various stages of the E-Discovery lifecycle and how you should treat document families as you move through them.

For this first blog post, I am going to define the basic document family relationships and discuss standard industry treatment. In my next post, I’ll go into specific issues that can arise in the different stages of the E-Discovery life cycle. At the end of the two part blogging, when you are presented with these questions, my hope is that this post will help you to speak intelligently on the subject and make an informed decision about how you should proceed.

Let’s start with the basics; a document family can be created in multiple ways:

1. E-MAIL FILES
Email data is usually transferred in a container format; emails are exported from their native program to a pst, ost, or nsf file. This methodology preserves the metadata associated with the individual email files. Once data is extracted from email archives, an email and any attachment thereto are treated as separate records, but are linked as a document family the BeginAttach and EndAttach field.

Industry standards dictate that this recognized family should not be broken apart without a compelling reason presented by counsel, and even then the entire family should be produced, but specific documents can be place-holdered with a legal reason describing why it was withheld (ie: Privileged, Confidential Business Information, etc).

2. OTHER CONTAINERS FILES
A method of transport for loose documents (ie: non-email data), is to zip up the loose files into a container of some sort. This also preserves the metadata in the same way that an email archive does. If your dataset contains archives that are not email archives files and are not otherwise attached to an email, most processing tools will treat the extracted contents of the archive (ie: the documents that reside in the archive file) as a document family, and those documents will be linked using the same fields noted above. It is important to note that there is a difference of opinion within the industry as to whether or not the family relationships created by the processing tools for non-email archive or container files are legitimate document families.

Some people treat the extracted contents as truly all being interconnected or related in some way. Others, like myself, tend to view the extracted contents of a non-email archive as being nothing more than documents that resided in a folder (albeit, a compressed folder) together. The logic is that you wouldn’t treat all documents in a folder as being related for document family purposes, so why would you do that for a compressed folder?

3. COMPOUND DOCUMENTS
If your dataset contains files such as a PowerPoint presentation that have excel, word, or other PowerPoint files that were added to the source file, most processing tools allow you to extract out the files into their own records. If you select this option, the tool will create a family relationship amongst the extracted and source file using the same linking field identified in the Email Files section. This is often referred to as compound document extraction.

As a general note, the industry has been moving away from this process for a couple of reasons.

First, all of the content that made the parent document responsive or not responsive can be found in the parent document, so extracting the additional files does nothing to add to the decision making process.

Second, there are now tools that will identify in most document types (office files, for example) if the source file has said added files to it. As a result, this can be called out to the reviewer in a read only field visible when the reviewer is looking at the document, and the reviewer can then inspect the extracted text to ensure that only the text appearing in the source document is being produced should that document be marked for production.

Third, most industry people I talk to see this as problematic from a review standpoint, not just because it adds documents for the reviewers to go through, but it also raises hosting and production costs on the back end.

4. EMBEDDED OBJECTS
Have you ever seen an email with one of those little image files down at the bottom associated with someone’s title block? That is the best example of an embedded object. Essentially an embedded object is usually some image that has been copied/pasted into a document. Most processing tools allow you to extract those embedded objects into their own files. When this option is selected, the tool will create a family relationship amongst the source file and the files that were extracted out of the source file using the same linking field identified in the Email Files section. Again, this is something the industry is moving away from for the same reasons outlined in the compound document section.

That covers the most common document family relationships. Next time, I will discuss how you should treat those various families and potential pitfalls and caveats in the various stages of the E-Discovery life cycle.

Background:

The Basics of eDiscovery: Treatment of Document Families, Part 1
Source: original article
Author: d4admin
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.

My story begins with this series of pictures, taken 27 years ago.

At the time, this seemed like a cool idea for a Mother's Day gift, and maybe one that would begin a bit of a tradition.

 Well, 27 of these little photo montages and 2 kids and one daughter-in-law later, I'm still at it. 

[Editor's note:  One might ask why am I still at it 27 years later, and why this fabulous idea has not yet been turned over to one of my kids.  THAT is a very good question.]

 Over the years, the process to create these works of art has changed.  The "Happy Mother's Day" changed to "We Love Mom" as the gang grew.

It used to be difficult to find mats and frames that suited my purpose.  Something must have changed in the matting and framing space over the past 25 years, because this is now a piece of cake (usually at Target).  

I used to take actual photos, and get actual film developed. To be on the safe side, I usually took at least 10 of each "we" and each "love" and each "mom" in order to make sure that at least one good one of each came out.  All of the outakes exist in some box somewhere. I had to get started about a week or so in advance in order to save time to get the pictures developed.

A byproduct of all our technological progress – as well as the dispersion of kids to multiple geographies – is that creating this annual project gets later and later each year (It's Mother's Day again? It's in early May this year?).  Well, this year took the cake, but in the process it also highlighted for me a great example of what it means to be a process revolutionary in the age of Social, Local, and Mobile (SoLoMo) technologies.

And my award as this year's Mother's Day Process Revolutionary – for really understanding how to adapt processes to the SoLoMo era – goes to Walgreen's (Founded in 1901).  That's not a misprint.

This year, Mother's Day was at Duke University, where that little guy in the photo at the beginning of this article (Joey, now "Joe") was getting his MBA from the Fuqua School.  Again, one would think with this going on, I would have prepared my Mother's Day montage months and months ago.  Ha ha ha ha ha.  My goodness, you do not know me very well.

 [In my defense for all that follows, my wife DID say to all of us, "Don't worry about Mother's Day this year.  It will be present enough just for all of us to be together."]

In my defense, I did have a frame. 

I also had a photo from MBA boy and his wife in my email.

And that was it.

So Saturday, I got to work, put my iPad into use, and sneaked outside during brunch first with #2 son Will for the "love" photo shoot.  Got it.  Then I grabbed Erin (the "Mom" role) and dragged her out on the porch during a break in the action.

Confident that I had been extremely sneaky in order to preserve the "surprise," I put the project on standby until after the graduation ceremony (and turns out after a party afterwards).

Fast forward to 12:15 a.m., back at the hotel.  Technically Mother's Day. 

And as I lay in bed with my iPhone, I pondered a fundamental question of digital and analog technologies: How exactly am I going to get these daggone photos out of my iPhone and printed in order to stick them in the frame?

And then I fell asleep.

I woke up before everyone else at 7:48.

My first thought was, "There must be a Walmart or a Target around here somewhere," and hid out in the bathroom, armed with my iPhone, in order to find the answer.  I used the store locator on each web site to find a few nearby stores, but there was no way to determine once I got there whether there would be a way to print from the iPhone and whether there was any way to get it done in an hour.

Then I heard a voice whispering, "Google the Problem, Grasshopper."

At first I resisted, and then the voice again, "Google the Problem, Grasshopper."

I entered "one hour photo" in my search bar and the first Walgreen's SoLoMo smart move paid off.

Walgreen's Win Number One – someone made the decision to purchase the right Adwords and had the right SEO strategy to get Walgreen's at the top of the heap for my search. 

And then Walgreen's Win Number Two – someone noted that there was an available app, right in the ad, and provided a link to it.  This was starting to get promising.

App downloaded and opened.  And Walgreen's Win Number Three – a specific and exactly clear statement of the value proposition of the app – "Print pictures right from your phone and pick them up in about an hour." Ha Ha! Life was getting better!

And then the next screen, Walgreen's Win Number Four.  Not some clunky web interface in 2 point font to transfer the photos, but upload options integrated into my normal IPhone albums.  Sweet.

Walgreen's Win Number Five.  After uploading, a process flow to allow me to select the size of photo.  This was important to me because I had a frame with 5×7 holes.  If everything defaulted to 4×6, I was done for.  Check, 5×7.

Then Walgreen's Win Number Six.  I should have perhaps thought of this before I started this process, but where was the nearest Walgreen's? Were they open on a Sunday? How would I get there? The app popped in, "Find Nearest Walgreen's?" I checked yes, it gave me 4 options, I chose the one 2.47 miles away, was told that my pictures would be ready at 9:18 am (in less than 30 minutes), and the app provided a map. 

I clicked "Finish" and the app surprised me with Walgreen's Win Number 7 – it required only the information that was needed at this stage of the process.  No lengthy set of questions. No credit card. No "how did you find us?" No "set up your communications preferences." Just first name, last name, phone, and email.  Bang. Zoom. Done.

I carefully opened the bathroom door.  Ahhh….everyone still asleep.

I grabbed my keys and headed to Walgreen's.

This is the point at which many processes run into trouble – the crossover between all the digital, no people stuff and actual analog, people side stuff.  Walgreen's Win Number Eight.  Waiting for me when I got to the store was Kyle Gray, waiting to hand me the pictures.  I even had a few minutes to pick up a card and a cool red wrapping bag on the way out the door.

I ran out to the car, put the pictures in the frame, put the frame in the bag and headed back to the hotel, where folks were just getting up.  And ready for Mother's Day breakfast. The finished product is below.

They reason I go through this is that none of this is particularly challenging or impressive from a technology perspective.  What was impressive was how it was packaged and how it was delivered.

Becoming a Process Revolutionary and tapping the full value of Social, Mobile, and Local technologies means: 1) thinking through what each of these clusters of technology means for your customer; 2) thinking through how they can be applied to solving a particular business problem; and 3) taking the time to design an elegant solution.  Not an acceptable solution, but an elegant one.

—–

Help revolutionize your organization's processes.  Become a Certified Information Professional.  Get a free white paper that explains why.

Test you skills.  Take our Certified Information Professional assessment.

Background:

Becoming a Process Revolutionary – 8 Things @Walgreen’s did EXACTLY RIGHT to win my Mother’s Day #SoLoMo prize
Source: original article
Author: John Mancini
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 myriad of published material regarding predictive coding technology has almost universally promised reduced costs and lighter burdens for the eDiscovery world. Indeed, until the now famous order was issued in the Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe case “approving” the use of predictive coding, many in the industry had parroted this “lower costs/lighter burdens” mantra like the retired athletes who chanted “tastes great/less filling” during the 1970s Miller Lite commercials. But a funny thing happened on the way to predictive coding satisfying the cost cutting mandate of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1: the same old eDiscovery story of high costs and lengthy delays are plaguing the initial outlay of this technology. The three publicized cases involving predictive coding are particularly instructive on this early, but troubling development.

Predictive Coding Cases

In Moore v. Publicis Groupe, the plaintiffs’ attempt to recuse Judge Peck has diverted the spotlight from the costs and delays associated with use of predictive coding. Indeed, the parties have been wrangling for months over the parameters of using this technology for defendant MSL’s document review. During that time, each side has incurred substantial attorney fees and other costs to address fairly routine review issues. This tardiness figures to continue as the parties now project that MSL’s production will not be complete until September 7, 2012. Even that date seems too sanguine, particularly given Judge Peck’s recent observation about the slow pace of production: “You’re now woefully behind schedule already at the first wave.” Moreover, Judge Peck has suggested on multiple occasions that a special master be appointed to address disagreements over relevance designations. Special masters, production delays, additional briefings and related court hearings all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the parties will be saddled with a huge eDiscovery bill (despite presumptively lower review costs) due to of the use of predictive coding technology.

The Kleen Products v. Packing Corporation case is also plagued by cost and delay issues. As explained in our post on this case last month, the plaintiffs are demanding a “do-over” of the defendants’ document production, insisting that predictive coding technology be used instead of keyword search and other analytical tools. Setting aside plaintiffs’ arguments, the costs the parties have incurred in connection with this motion are quickly mounting. After submitting briefings on the issues, the court has now held two hearings on the matter, including a full day of testimony from the parties’ experts. With another “Discovery Hearing” now on the docket for May 22nd, predictive coding has essentially turned an otherwise routine document production query into an expensive, time consuming sideshow with no end in sight.

Cost and delay issues may very well trouble the parties in the Global Aerospace v. Landow Aviation matter, too. In Global Aerospace, the court acceded to the defendants’ request to use predictive coding technology over the plaintiffs’ objections. Despite allowing the use of such technology, the court provided plaintiffs with the opportunity to challenge the “completeness or the contents of the production or the ongoing use of predictive coding technology.” Such a condition essentially invites plaintiffs to re-litigate their objections through motion practice. Moreover, like the proverbial “exception that swallows the rule,” the order allows for the possibility that the court could withdraw its approval of predictive coding technology. All of which could lead to seemingly endless discovery motions, production “re-dos” and inevitable cost and delay issues.

Better Times Ahead?

At present, the Da Silva Moore, Kleen Products and Global Aerospace cases do not suggest that predictive coding technology will “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Nevertheless, there is room for considerable optimism that predictive coding will ultimately succeed. Technological advances in the industry will provide greater transparency into the black box of predictive coding technology that to date has not existed. Additional advances should also lead to easy-to-use workflow management consoles, which will in turn increase defensibility of the process and satisfy legitimate concerns regarding production results, such as those raised by the plaintiffs in Moore and Global Aerospace.

Technological advances that also increase the accuracy of first generation predictive coding tools should yield greater understanding and acceptance about the role predictive coding can play in eDiscovery. As lawyers learn to trust the reliability of transparent predictive coding, they will appreciate how this tool can be deployed in various scenarios (e.g., prioritization, quality assurance for linear review, full scale production) and in connection with existing eDiscovery technologies. In addition, such understanding will likely facilitate greater cooperation among counsel, a lynchpin for expediting the eDiscovery process. This is evident from the Moore, Kleen Products and Global Aerospace cases, where a lack of cooperation has caused increased costs and delays.

With the promise of transparency and simpler workflows, predictive coding technology should eventually live up to its billing of helping organizations discover their information in an efficient, cost effective and defensible manner.  As for now, the “promise” of first generation predictive coding tools appears to be nothing more than that, leaving organizations looking like the cash-strapped “Monopoly man,” wondering where there litigation dollars have gone.

Background:

Will Predictive Coding Live Up to the eDiscovery Hype?
Source: original article
Author: Philip Favro
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.

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were updated in 2006 specifically to deal with electronically stored information (“ESI”), Bankruptcy Courts and Bankruptcy practitioners have had little bankruptcy-specific guidelines for managing ESI and electronic discovery issues. As a result, the ABA commissioned the Electronic Discovery (ESI) in Bankruptcy Working Group “to study and prepare guidelines or a best practices report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve [ESI] in bankruptcy cases.” On March 15, 2012, the Working Group published their interim report on ESI in bankruptcy cases in an effort to invite and stimulate comments from a wider audience regarding how ESI issues should be handled in (i) large Chapter 11 cases; (ii) middle market and smaller Chapter 11 cases; and (iii) Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases.

The Working Group’s primary focus has been on a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession’s obligation to preserve ESI in connection with adversary proceedings, contested matters and the bankruptcy case itself, as well as the obligation of non-debtor parties to preserve ESI. Although the report differentiates between cases based on the size of the bankrupt entity and whether it has commenced a reorganization or liquidation proceeding, the principles espoused throughout the report are similar, with the differences primarily being focused on the economic constraints of each type of case.

The proposed standards, not surprisingly, contemplate that the duty to preserve ESI applies in the bankruptcy context. Tracking the traditional standards, the duty to preserve ESI arises when the lawsuit is filed or potential litigation matters become reasonably anticipated. Conversely, the actual or anticipated filing of a bankruptcy case would not, by itself, require a debtor to preserve every piece of information in its possession. Instead, it would, in general, be appropriate for the debtors to continue following routine document retention programs, consistent with the reasonable anticipation of contested matters and adversary proceedings.

One unique principle proposed by the Working Group recognizes that proportionality, an important issue in non-bankruptcy matters, is key to bankruptcy cases. In general, debtors are operating with financial constraints and usually have limited assets, and creditors can generally expect less than a full recovery on their claims. In recognition of this, the Working Group suggests that debtors and trustees should not be forced to spend a disproportionate amount of the debtors’ limited resources on the preservation and production of ESI.

Finally, the principles encourage counsel to meet and confer with respect to ESI issues even where Bankruptcy Rule 7026 does not apply, such as contested matters. Given the nature of a bankruptcy case, where, ideally, disputes are resolved quickly and efficiently to avoid dissipating estate assets, such a conference may help to minimize disputes and promote this efficiency.

In addition, the Working Group provided ESI guidelines and suggested best practices for debtor’s counsel. While not applicable or practical in every bankruptcy case, these guidelines suggest that ESI should be dealt with as a whole at the beginning of a case, as opposed to using a piecemeal approach during the case. The Working Group suggests this approach will prove to be more efficient and less burdensome to the debtor.

Gibbons P.C. continues to monitor the Working Group and will issue an update upon the release of additional interim reports or the final report.

Christopher A. Albanese is an Associate in the Gibbons Financial Restructuring & Creditors’ Rights Department. Jeffrey S. Berkowitz, Counsel to the Gibbons Financial Restructuring & Creditors’ Rights Department, co-authored this post.

Background:

ESI Guidelines for the Bankruptcy Case: The ABA’s Electronic Discovery in Bankruptcy Working Group Issues Interim Report
Source: original article
Author: Christopher A. Albanese
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.

On May 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for recusal or disqualification. Those pleadings are available below.

• Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification

• Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification 
 

Background:

Da Silva Moore: Plaintiffs File Reply in Support of Motion for Recusal or Disqualification
Source: original article
Author: K&L Gates
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.

edX is a new Internet distance learning site that promises to transform education to “enhance campus-based teaching and learning, and build a global community of online learners.” The joint partnership announcement promised that edX will:

…offer online learning to millions of people around the world. EdX will offer Harvard and MIT classes online for free.

The Atlantic calls edX the “The Single Biggest Change in Education Since the Printing Press.” 

Does this really make sense, what’s so new about Internet distance learning? Or is it just free Harvard and MIT education for millions around the world? 

Actually Khan Academy claims it has already delivered more than +149 million lessons to date.  I guess distance learning is already well-developed, and perhaps Harvard and MIT finally figured out they need to get with it!
 

Background:

Distance Learning on the Internet – Harvard & MIT Change all the Rules
Source: original article
Author: Peter S. Vogel
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.

7 May 2012 – Rob Robinson or Orange Legal Technologies has put together a special edition of his weekly Unfiltered Orange Weekly eDiscovery News Update.  Its focus is on technology assisted review related links from February 1, 2012 to May 7, 2012.

For the post click here.

Background:

Updated: Technology Assisted Review Backgrounder
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.