eDiscovery is the monster that ate Cleveland and email is the most significant volume of ESI in eDiscovery, and IDC “estimates that as much as 60% of this business-critical information is stored in email and other electronic messaging tools” and as result “email archives as they not only work to protect organizations from compliance and litigation risk.”
“Are a Google Earth satellite image and a digital ‘tack’ labeled with GPS coordinates hearsay?” In this case, the Ninth Circuit answered “no.”
This is the first in a series of blogs describing a two-filter method for the identification and mass culling of irrelevant documents.
As a mediator, there is always a case that you question yourself as to what you could you could have done differently in order to resolve the matter.
In the latest of a string of decisions relating to ediscovery spoliation, the First Department, on Jun 11, 2015, reconfirmed a basic principal of a spoliation motion: the party seeking sanctions must demonstrate that the spoliated materials were relevant to their case.
In this breach of licensing agreement dispute, the Defendants sought spoliation sanctions against the Plaintiff.
Admit it – it feels strange, in an e-discovery world, to include “tangible things” in a legal hold notice.
Like most complex commercial litigation, class actions typically require parties to preserve, collect, review and produce large volumes of data.
Magistrate Judge Peck’s Recent Decision On the Use of Predictive Coding and the Cooperative Obligations Involved
A little more than three years ago, federal Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck (SDNY), issued a seminal decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group, 11 Civ. 1279 (February 24, 2012).
It is not uncommon, in the litigation of a federal construction claim, for the Government to produce gigabytes of electronic data, amounting to thousands and thousands of documents, in response to a motion for the production of documents.