RISE OF THE MACHINES: Technology-Assisted Coding in the ESI Age. Robert J. Burns Benjamin R. Wilson
|
|
- Allan Robinson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 RISE OF THE MACHINES: Technology-Assisted Coding in the ESI Age Robert J. Burns Benjamin R. Wilson It was not long ago that business and with it, litigation involving business was conducted far differently. Managers drafted memoranda, employees created reports and assistants typed letters. Photocopies were made, and files and archives organized all the paper. A litigator collecting documents would identify the right employees, find their relevant files and examine the archive index to locate historical documents. Perhaps a peek in the account, and after reviewing for privilege and applying bates numbers, the production was done. Today s employee at nearly every level, and in nearly every field generates little paper but mountains of data. chains lengthen, splinter and multiply. Texts and instant messages fly from workstations, laptops and mobile devices. Documents reside on file servers and collaborative workspaces, and iterations proliferate. Materials are exchanged within and between companies on encrypted websites. Operative business and contractual communication often occurs via electronic exchange, not signed paper. The speed of business, the shrinking administrative workforce and the availability of useful (albeit limited) search tools, all mean that nobody pays attention to organizing this amorphous data for posterity. And then the lawsuit hits. Litigators were among the last to realize that business, and business litigation, had changed. At first, we pretended that electronic data was another category of paper, and satisfied ourselves (and, we thought, our discovery obligations) by asking lay custodians to identify, search and print their relevant electronic files. Then, Zubulake was issued, the Federal Rules were amended and courts took the offensive on discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). Minimizing ESI search and production obligations now posed untenable risks to our cases and to our clients. Faced with this seismic shift, we improvised. Full manual review was impossible in most large cases, so we negotiated search terms, hoping to stumble on balanced terms that identified relevant documents and excluded the irrelevant. But terms proved under-inclusive, overinclusive or both, leading to few needles in large haystacks. We hired armies of contract attorneys to sift through data to identify responsive and "hot" documents. But even the brightest contract attorney had limited expertise with the legal issues in a case and limited visibility into the factual issues. This produced idiosyncratic decisions and, often, inconsistency and error. Then, once the review was completed and the contract army disbanded, the institutional knowledge developed by those closest to the documentary record largely evaporated, just in time for depositions, motion practice and trial. For all the money spent and
2 gigabytes exchanged, this process which became the new standard for discovery compliance advanced substantive case development too little, or not at all. Emerging technology created this quandary. Now, emerging technology holds new promise to mitigate these challenges for litigators, and for business clients weary of paying too much for too little return saw the first steps toward judicial validation of new "technology-assisted review" approaches that endeavor to re-balance the scale has witnessed judicial reliance, endorsement and advocacy of machine learning tools that increase effectiveness and efficiency in locating responsive documents. Technology-assisted review will not produce perfect discovery. In today s data-intensive business world, no review approach will. 1 Nor will these new tools completely replace previously employed review tools, at least not for awhile. Indeed, for smaller data sets, the cost of using predictive coding assistance very well may be outweighed by any practical benefit of its use. 2 However, for the right case, these new technologies offer efficient and defensible processes for reviewing large quantities of ESI with more consistency and fewer errors than the alternatives. Not only do these tools hold the promise of fewer overall dollars spent, they promise that the dollars will be spent in a smarter way. These new tools place a premium on the training of a computer algorithm by lawyers with knowledge of the facts, the law and the key issues. The more those training the algorithm know about the case, the smarter the algorithm will be and the better it will work. This increases overall accuracy, expedites identification of critical documents and increases early hands-on facility among the litigation team with the documentary record. In short, these tools promise not only to satisfy a party s discovery obligations, but to more completely and more expeditiously arm the party s litigators for the litigation to come. The Methodology The use of technology to assist with manual review is not new. Key-word searching applies search terms (sometimes, Boolean, proximity and/or wildcard terms) to limit the universe of data for review. "Deduplication" and grouping of "near duplicates" further reduce the quantity of documents to be reviewed and minimize the risk of inconsistent review. Threading chains enables all iterations of the same chain to be coded together, enhancing efficiency and consistency. "Smart filters" permit reviewers to restrict documents by or domain address, for example, and eliminate many of the "junk" s captured by keywords. Each of these tools is employed to winnow the review set and to streamline what remains, in essence, a manual review process. 1 "There is simply no [discovery] tool that guarantees perfection." (Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 11 Civ (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012). 2 See, e.g., EORHB, Inc. v. HOLA Holdings, LLC, No VCL, 2013 WL ((Del. Ch. May 6, 2013) (modifying a prior order requiring parties to conduct a review with the assistance of predictive coding where parties subsequently agreed that based on low volume of relevant documents expected to be produced in discovery, the cost of using predictive coding would likely be outweighed by any practice benefit of its use). 2
3 Now, new software technology platforms offer iterative learning methods intended to reduce but not replace human review. These tools are referred to variously as "technologyassisted coding" and/or "predictive coding." Though the algorithms and predictive analytics offered by particular software differ, these tools all rely on attorneys to train an algorithm that is applied to identify responsive, privileged and "hot" documents based upon similarity to the human-coded set. As documents are retrieved, lawyers preferably those with significant knowledge of the facts, the law and the key issues in the case instruct the algorithm whether its "predicted" coding is accurate. This process repeats itself over multiple iterations. As the database "trains" itself with more human reviewer feedback, the algorithm's predictability improves. In practice, one or more members of the case team review an initial set of documents randomly selected from the full review population. These attorneys code each as either responsive or non-responsive, and with coding indicating substantive issues, privilege concerns and/or criticality. Using built-in analytical tools usually, a sophisticated mix of keywords, Boolean connectors, concept searches and categorical groupings the database identifies underlying elements and properties of the coded documents, and uses those elements and properties to make coding predictions for the un-reviewed universe of documents. A new set of documents is fed to the attorney review team, along with the algorithm s "predicted" coding for each. Attorneys correct the proposed coding if necessary and "re-train" the algorithm; then the process repeats. When the database s predictions and the attorneys' coding coincide to a determined level of confidence, the system has learned enough to make confident predictions for the remaining documents. Although timelines vary somewhat, attorneys may only need to review a small fraction of the overall data set to reach this point. The process concludes with quality control rounds, where random samples are selected and computer-predicted results are tested against human coding. If the coding corresponds to a determined degree of confidence, the process is complete. If not, the algorithm returns for further rounds of training until it meets the quality control metric. It is important to remember that selecting a particular tool is not one-size-fits-all. Each software employs slightly different approaches, and each provides distinctive workflows. Accordingly, consideration of predictive coding technologies should be a collaborative process between a client, outside counsel, litigation support staff and prospective vendors. The selection should reflect consideration of the volume of ESI, the scope of review, applicable timing and cost. Also, certain cases may benefit from hybrid approaches, such as where predictive coding is applied to thorny data sets (e.g., large archives), while remaining documents are reviewed via traditional manual review or the use of keyword and deduplication processes to initially reduce the volume of a data set followed by the use of predictive coding to locate responsive documents within the remaining corpus. 3 3 See, e.g., In re Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:12-MD-2391, 2013 WL (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013) (endorsing, over the plaintiffs' objection, the defendant's use of predictive coding to identify relevant documents for production from the 2.5 million that emerged from the keyword and deduplication processes, which initially reduced the universe of documents and attachments from 19.5 million). 3
4 Benefits of Predictive Coding We enumerate here several of the chief advantages of predictive coding technologies that we highlighted in the discussion above. 1. Reliability Magistrate Judge Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York the first judge to publicly endorse the use of predictive coding explained: "while some lawyers still consider manual review to be the 'gold standard,' that is a myth, as statistics clearly show that computerized searches are least as accurate, if not more so, than manual review." 4 While some may resist the idea that machines can perform portions of our jobs better than we do, human error is endemic in manual review. As litigators know and as the judiciary has begun to recognize, "such review is prone to human error and marred with inconsistencies from the various attorneys' determination of whether a document is responsive." 5 Large-scale manual review almost invariably requires the use of contract attorneys. These attorneys' knowledge of a client's industry and its business is likely negligible, and their experience litigating cases involving similar issues is limited. Their knowledge of the facts of the case is contained entirely within the background information provided in the course of their review. The amount of data to be reviewed is enormous, and court-imposed deadlines are often tight, requiring long hours and sprawling teams. Individual reviewers differ in their ability to maintain alertness, spot responsive documents, assess a document's potential criticality to the case, navigate privilege issues, and make correct and consistent decisions about marginal documents. 6 Notwithstanding quality control procedures, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and errors inevitably remain. Keyword searches are not the answer, for several reasons. First, these searches are formulated at the earliest stages of case development, often before extensive interviews of key players, and generally before the issues and applicable lexicon are understood fully. Second, such searches fail to include variations for example, slang, misspellings and acronyms that could exclude key data. Third, keyword searches often capture a large amount of irrelevant data caused by "false hits," requiring the same extensive manual review processes described above. In short, as Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York put it, "[s]imple keyword searching is often not enough... there is increasing strong evidence that keyword searching is not nearly as effective at identifying relevant information as 7 many lawyers would like to believe." 4 Moore v. Publicis Group, 287 F.R.D. 182, 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), adopted by, 2012 WL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012). 5 Moore, 2012 WL , at * 3. 6 Herbert L. Roitblat, Predictive Coding and Defensibility at 1 (2011 Orcatec). 7 Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 877 F. Supp. 2d 87, (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 4
5 Utilizing manual review or keyword searches or, most commonly, a hybrid of the two often results in coding and production inconsistencies. Inconsistencies become fertile ground for exploitation by adversaries, often resulting in costly fights where nothing is gained and credibility may be lost. Similarly, these methods pose the risk that relevant, even critical, documents may remain undiscovered; the producing party may be without the benefit of documents that would make its case, or may be subject to sanctions for non-production of documents that would make its adversary's case. Technology-assisted coding avoids many of these pitfalls by permitting a single attorney or small team to review and categorize large quantities of ESI with lower effort, and demonstrably greater consistency and accuracy. The software mechanisms for training the algorithm rely on a flexible and proven set of methods for identifying documents similar to those deemed relevant, or "hot," such that the risk of overlooking critical documents is reduced. And once trained to a defensible degree of confidence, the algorithm is applied consistently across the universe of collected data, eliminating inconsistencies by ensuring that all data is reviewed pursuant to a single set of parameters. 2. Prioritizing Review Moreover, technology-assisted review allows for efficient work flows. Documents may be batched for review based upon the algorithm s prediction of the likelihood they are responsive and/or "hot." In a case where depositions will immediately follow large productions, those preparing for depositions will have the benefit of the most critical documents much earlier in the process. Also, prioritizing review allows a party to expedite the algorithm training process, such as by assigning documents with the highest predicted relevance to attorneys with the most underlying knowledge of the case. 3. Enhanced Institutional Knowledge Leaving aside error rates, manual contract attorney review also suffers from a lack of institutional knowledge and memory: once the project is complete, the contract team disbands, and their coding notations are the only record of their process. Although this constitutes compliance with discovery obligations, it often leaves counsel ill-equipped to use the documentary record effectively in depositions, motion practice and at trial. Counsel who will be handling the litigation going forward are often several steps removed from the teams wading through data. Although senior litigation counsel may supervise the overall review process and may review certain key documents as they are identified, it is often not until deposition preparation that senior litigators in document-intensive cases get their arms around the documentary record. By that time, the senior litigator has a document set filtered through multiple sets of junior attorneys: the contract attorneys who identify responsive and "hot" documents, the associates who quality-control the production and assemble a definitive set of critical documents and the associate who pulls together critical documents relevant to depositions. 5
6 Predictive coding turns this dynamic on its head. By having a senior attorney (or a team thereof) assume active involvement in the initial stages of teaching the database what is responsive and what is important, these senior attorneys acquire a greater understanding of the documentary record as it is being developed. And, by involving senior attorneys in the initial stages of review, those attorneys' knowledge of industry, client, facts and law are incorporated into their coding, which in turn produces a more robust algorithm. Junior attorneys may be called upon to complete the process, but with the algorithm doing much of the heavy lifting that contract attorneys once performed, review teams are leaner and composed of associates who will continue to work on the case going forward. Similarly, once the investment is made to train the algorithm, the algorithm stays trained. If a new set of client data is later collected, the trained algorithm can be applied to that new data set without the need to mount a brand-new review process. And when the opponent's production arrives, the algorithm understanding by that point a great deal about what counsel considers most important will quickly identify potentially critical documents for review. All of this means that effective use of these tools allows a party s litigation counsel those responsible for setting litigation strategy, counseling clients and handling subsequent stages of litigation to get much smarter, much faster. Conducting a Defensible Technology-Assisted Review Though technology-assisted coding is relativity new, and was judicially approved last year, courts are trending in favor. Indeed, in 2013, several federal courts across the United States have encouraged the parties to use predictive cording and acknowledged the advantages of this technology. 8 In light of the many advantages detailed above, now is the time to consider its use in appropriate cases. Below is a non-exhaustive list of guidelines, gleaned from recent experience and from the few court opinions issued to date, for developing and implementing an efficient, robust and defensible predictive coding process. 8 See, e.g., Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 11 Civ. 0691(LAK), 2013 WL , at *32 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013) (encouraging a non-party to use predictive coding to reduce the burden and effort required to comply with a subpoena); Hinterberger v. Catholic Health Sys, Inc., No. 08-CV-378S(F), 2013 WL (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013) and Gordon v. Kaleida Health, No. 08-CV-380S(F), 2013 WL (W.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013) (noting that the court previously directed the parties to consider computer assisted ESI reviewing and production method in accordance with Moore, and denying a motion to compel where defendants agreed to meet and confer with plaintiffs and plaintiffs' ESI consultants regarding defendants' production using predictive coding); cf. Gabriel Techs Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08-cv-1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL , at *10 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (awarding defense counsel over $2 million in fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 attributable to computer-assisted review and remarking that defendants "decision to undertake a more efficient and less time-consuming method of document review to be reasonable under the circumstances."); Nat'l Day, 877 F. Supp. 2d at 109 (Scheindlin, J.) (describing predictive coding as an emerging best practice for dealing with the shortcomings of traditional keyword searches). 6
7 First, the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation states that "the best solution in the entire area of electronic discovery is cooperation among counsel." 9 Predictive coding is no exception to this rule. Absent good reason not to, counsel should advise opposing counsel that it intends to use technology-assisted coding and attempt to secure opposing counsel's agreement. Counsel should also confer with opposing counsel on a review protocol. A nonexhaustive list of issues for discussion include: (1) use of keywords in the collection of documents, (2) number of custodians, (3) size of the seed set, (4) use of concept groups, (5) number of iterative rounds to stabilize algorithm training, and (6) targeted confidence level. Open discussion with opposing counsel on these issues can ensure defensibility by securing agreement, or can narrow disputed issues for judicial resolution. At a minimum, up-front discussion prevents later claims of sandbagging. Second, in business litigations where discovery burdens are roughly balanced, the invitation to 10 use predictive coding will often be welcome and may result in a bilateral agreement. In the event an adversary also elects to use technology-assisted coding, counsel should consider whether to engage a single vendor and split database costs. Of course, if this approach is proposed, the parties need a protocol for protecting the confidentiality of unproduced and privileged documents, and of party-specific issue coding. Third, counsel should continue its transparency throughout the review process. This may mean providing opposing counsel with: (1) a list of custodians, (2) keywords applied, (3) documents reviewed as a function of the initial seed or control set, whether they were ultimately coded as responsive or nonresponsive, (4) issue codes or concept groups, and/or (5) proof of a valid 11 quality control process, including the confidence level determined to conclude the review. Timely disclosure of these matters could strengthen the protocol's defensibility in the event of later challenge. Such disclosure could require the adversary to articulate its objection(s) on the matters being disclosed or risk waiver. Fourth, regardless of disclosure, all aspects of the process should be carefully documented. Even where there is agreement among counsel as to the use of predictive coding, the variations among tools and the presence of individualized determinations counsel in favor of meticulous documentation. The need to document becomes stronger still where the decision to use predictive coding is made unilaterally or over the adversary s objection. Further, the 9 Moore, 287 F.R.D. at 192 (citing 10 Consider, for example, the parties' bilateral agreement endorsed by a federal judge of the U.S. District Court of Louisiana. In re Actos, MDL No. 6:11-md-2299, 2012 WL , at *3-8 (W.D.La. Jul. 27, 2012). In training the database, both parties agreed to designate three individuals to work collaboratively to review the initial random documents collected from four agreed-upon custodians identified by the defendant. The plaintiffs' designated individuals, however, had to sign nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, agreeing not to disclose information to co-counsel or their clients without defendant's consent. At the conclusion of this training phase, the parties agreed to meet and confer regarding which relevance score would provide a cutoff for documents to be manually review by defense counsel for production. 11 See Moore, 287 F.R.D. at
8 responsibility for documentation should not be ceded to the vendor; counsel and/or its litigation support staff should document the process that they may be called upon to defend. Fifth, to further control costs and fees, a party may consider staging review. For example, this could involve collecting and reviewing documents solely from sources or custodians most likely to have relevant data, without prejudice to the requesting party seeking additional documents after the conclusion of that first-stage review. Or, where the client has identified an initial set of key documents, these documents can be seeded into an initial training set as responsive and "hot," potentially shaving rounds off of the training process. A Highly Promising Tool In sum, predictive coding technologies hold great promise for extricating businesses, and their litigators, from the burdens posed by data proliferation. Structured and executed properly, a review protocol using these tools can be an efficient, cost-effective and defensible means of complying with discovery obligations. But just as importantly, these new technologies advance case development by enhancing review accuracy and consistency, increasing the likelihood that key documents are captured and allowing a party and its senior litigation team real-time visibility into the documentary record as it develops. Robert J. Burns is a partner in the Litigation Practice Group of Holland & Knight's New York City office. Mr. Burns has a broad complex business litigation practice, with particular focus upon antitrust, product liability, and insurance actions. In recent years, he has represented U.S. and foreign clients across a wide range of industries, including aviation and transportation, insurance and reinsurance, manufacturing and distribution, and finance and investment. Benjamin R. Wilson is an associate in the Litigation Practice Group of Holland & Knight's New York office, where he is admitted to practice in both New York and New Jersey state and federal courts. Mr. Wilson concentrates on commercial litigation, including breach of contract, fraud and unfair competition claims. His experience encompasses all phases of the litigation process, from pre-trial discovery and motion practice through trial and appeal. Mr. Wilson also participates in ICC and AAA arbitrations and mediations. 8
ESI and Predictive Coding
Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Frankfurt Hong Kong ESI and Predictive Coding Houston London Los Angeles Moscow Munich New York Palo Alto Paris São Paulo Charles W. Schwartz Chris Wycliff December 13,
More informationTraditionally, the gold standard for identifying potentially
istockphoto.com/alexandercreative Predictive Coding: It s Here to Stay Predictive coding programs are poised to become a standard practice in e-discovery in the near future. As more courts weigh in on
More informationPredictive Coding: How to Cut Through the Hype and Determine Whether It s Right for Your Review
Predictive Coding: How to Cut Through the Hype and Determine Whether It s Right for Your Review ACEDS Webinar April 23, 2014 Sponsored by Robert Half Legal 1 2014 Robert Half Legal. An Equal Opportunity
More informationE-Discovery in Mass Torts:
E-Discovery in Mass Torts: Predictive Coding Friend or Foe? Sherry A. Knutson Sidley Austin One S Dearborn St 32nd Fl Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 853-4710 sknutson@sidley.com Sherry A. Knutson is a partner
More informationThe Truth About Predictive Coding: Getting Beyond The Hype
www.encase.com/ceic The Truth About Predictive Coding: Getting Beyond The Hype David R. Cohen Reed Smith LLP Records & E-Discovery Practice Group Leader David leads a group of more than 100 lawyers in
More informationTechnology- Assisted Review 2.0
LITIGATION AND PRACTICE SUPPORT Technology- Assisted Review 2.0 by Ignatius Grande of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Andrew Paredes of Epiq Systems Legal teams and their outside counsel must deal with an
More informationcase 3:12-md-02391-RLM-CAN document 396 filed 04/18/13 page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION
case 3:12-md-02391-RLM-CAN document 396 filed 04/18/13 page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
More informationThe State Of Predictive Coding
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Discovery The State Of Predictive Coding by Royce F. Cohen and Derek I.A. Silverman Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP New York A commentary article reprinted from the September
More informationJudge Peck Provides a Primer on Computer-Assisted Review By John Tredennick
By John Tredennick CEO Catalyst Repository Systems Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a landmark decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis and MSL Group, filed on Feb. 24, 2012. This decision made headlines
More informationRecent Developments in the Law & Technology Relating to Predictive Coding
Recent Developments in the Law & Technology Relating to Predictive Coding Presented by Paul Neale CEO Presented by Gene Klimov VP & Managing Director Presented by Gerard Britton Managing Director 2012
More informationMANAGING BIG DATA IN LITIGATION
David Han 2015 MANAGING BIG DATA IN LITIGATION DAVID HAN Associate, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, edata Practice Group MANAGING BIG DATA Data volumes always increasing New data sources Mobile Internet of Things
More informationMaking The Most Of Document Analytics
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Making The Most Of Document Analytics Law360, New
More informationThe Duty of Preservation
Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia Kenneth J. Withers, Esq. Deputy Executive Director,
More informationPredictive Coding Helps Companies Reduce Discovery Costs
Predictive Coding Helps Companies Reduce Discovery Costs Recent Court Decisions Open Door to Wider Use by Businesses to Cut Costs in Document Discovery By John Tredennick As companies struggle to manage
More informationTechnology Assisted Review of Documents
Ashish Prasad, Esq. Noah Miller, Esq. Joshua C. Garbarino, Esq. October 27, 2014 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 What is TAR?... 3 TAR Workflows and Roles... 3 Predictive Coding Workflows... 4 Conclusion...
More informationDEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE RECOMMENDED CASE HANDLING GUIDELINES FOR INSURERS
DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE RECOMMENDED CASE HANDLING GUIDELINES FOR INSURERS I. PREFACE Philosophy [Insurer] expects to work with the Firm and the insured to achieve the best result for the insured in
More informationPr a c t i c a l Litigator s Br i e f Gu i d e t o Eva l u at i n g Ea r ly Ca s e
Ba k e Offs, De m o s & Kicking t h e Ti r e s: A Pr a c t i c a l Litigator s Br i e f Gu i d e t o Eva l u at i n g Ea r ly Ca s e Assessment So f t wa r e & Search & Review Tools Ronni D. Solomon, King
More informationElectronically Stored Information in Litigation
Electronically Stored Information in Litigation Volume 69, November 2013 By Timothy J. Chorvat and Laura E. Pelanek* I. Introduction Recent developments in the use of electronically stored information
More informationEmerging Topics for E-Discovery. October 22, 2014
Emerging Topics for E-Discovery October 22, 2014 ACEDS Membership Benefits Training, Resources and Networking for the E-Discovery Community! Exclusive News and Analysis! Weekly Web Seminars! Podcasts!
More informationCOURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Fall 2014
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Professors:Mark Austrian Christopher Racich Fall 2014 Introduction The ubiquitous use of computers, the
More informationPredictive Coding: A Primer
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Discovery Predictive Coding: A Primer by Amy Jane Longo, Esq. and Usama Kahf, Esq. O Melveny & Myers LLP Los Angeles, California A commentary article reprinted from the March
More informationTechnology Assisted Review: The Disclosure of Training Sets and Related Transparency Issues Whitney Street, Esq. 1
Technology Assisted Review: The Disclosure of Training Sets and Related Transparency Issues Whitney Street, Esq. 1 The potential cost savings and increase in accuracy afforded by technology assisted review
More informationSAMPLING: MAKING ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY MORE COST EFFECTIVE
SAMPLING: MAKING ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY MORE COST EFFECTIVE Milton Luoma Metropolitan State University 700 East Seventh Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55337 651 793-1246 (fax) 651 793-1481 Milt.Luoma@metrostate.edu
More informationPredictive Coding: Understanding the Wows & Weaknesses
Predictive Coding: Understanding the Wows & Weaknesses Bryan Callahan, CPA, CFF, CFE, CVA Managing Consultant Forensics & Valuation Services bcallahan@bkd.com Lanny Morrow, EnCE Supervising Consultant
More informationCost-Effective and Defensible Technology Assisted Review
WHITE PAPER: SYMANTEC TRANSPARENT PREDICTIVE CODING Symantec Transparent Predictive Coding Cost-Effective and Defensible Technology Assisted Review Who should read this paper Predictive coding is one of
More informationE-Discovery Guidance for Federal Government Professionals Summer 2014
E-Discovery Guidance for Federal Government Professionals Summer 2014 Allison Stanton Director, E-Discovery, FOIA, & Records Civil Division, Department of Justice Adam Bain Senior Trial Counsel Civil Division,
More informationPredictive Coding Defensibility and the Transparent Predictive Coding Workflow
WHITE PAPER: PREDICTIVE CODING DEFENSIBILITY........................................ Predictive Coding Defensibility and the Transparent Predictive Coding Workflow Who should read this paper Predictive
More informationPredictive Coding Defensibility and the Transparent Predictive Coding Workflow
Predictive Coding Defensibility and the Transparent Predictive Coding Workflow Who should read this paper Predictive coding is one of the most promising technologies to reduce the high cost of review by
More informationDiscussion of Electronic Discovery at Rule 26(f) Conferences: A Guide for Practitioners
Discussion of Electronic Discovery at Rule 26(f) Conferences: A Guide for Practitioners INTRODUCTION Virtually all modern discovery involves electronically stored information (ESI). The production and
More informationPRESENTED BY: Sponsored by:
PRESENTED BY: Sponsored by: Practical Uses of Analytics in E-Discovery - A PRIMER Jenny Le, Esq. Vice President of Discovery Services jle@evolvediscovery.com E-Discovery & Ethics Structured, Conceptual,
More informationThe United States Law Week
The United States Law Week Source: U.S. Law Week: News Archive > 2012 > 04/24/2012 > BNA Insights > Under Fire: A Closer Look at Technology- Assisted Document Review E-DISCOVERY Under Fire: A Closer Look
More informationDigital Government Institute. Managing E-Discovery for Government: Integrating Teams and Technology
Digital Government Institute Managing E-Discovery for Government: Integrating Teams and Technology Larry Creech Program Manager Information Catalog Program Corporate Information Security Information Technology
More informationTHE PREDICTIVE CODING CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW
THE PREDICTIVE CODING CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW WELCOME Thank you for joining Numerous diverse attendees Please feel free to submit questions Slides, recording and survey coming tomorrow SPEAKERS Matthew
More informationA PRIMER ON THE NEW ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY PROVISIONS IN THE ALABAMA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
A PRIMER ON THE NEW ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY PROVISIONS IN THE ALABAMA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Effective February 1, 2010, the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to provide for and accommodate
More informationE-discovery Taking Predictive Coding Out of the Black Box
E-discovery Taking Predictive Coding Out of the Black Box Joseph H. Looby Senior Managing Director FTI TECHNOLOGY IN CASES OF COMMERCIAL LITIGATION, the process of discovery can place a huge burden on
More informationHow Good is Your Predictive Coding Poker Face?
How Good is Your Predictive Coding Poker Face? SESSION ID: LAW-W03 Moderator: Panelists: Matthew Nelson ediscovery Counsel Symantec Corporation Hon. Andrew J. Peck US Magistrate Judge Southern District
More informationPREDICTIVE CODING: SILVER BULLET OR PANDORA S BOX?
Vol. 46 No. 3 February 6, 2013 PREDICTIVE CODING: SILVER BULLET OR PANDORA S BOX? The high costs of e-discovery have led to the development of computerized review technology by which the user may search
More informationCase 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
More informationREDUCING COSTS WITH ADVANCED REVIEW STRATEGIES - PRIORITIZATION FOR 100% REVIEW. Bill Tolson Sr. Product Marketing Manager Recommind Inc.
REDUCING COSTS WITH ADVANCED REVIEW STRATEGIES - Bill Tolson Sr. Product Marketing Manager Recommind Inc. Introduction... 3 Traditional Linear Review... 3 Advanced Review Strategies: A Typical Predictive
More informationThe Evolution, Uses, and Case Studies of Technology Assisted Review
FEBRUARY 4 6, 2014 / THE HILTON NEW YORK The Evolution, Uses, and Case Studies of Technology Assisted Review One Size Does Not Fit All #LTNY Meet Our Panelists The Honorable Dave Waxse U.S. Magistrate
More informationSTEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO)
STEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 242 F.R.D.
More informationNew York Law Journal (Online) May 25, 2012 Friday
1 of 6 10/16/2014 2:36 PM New York Law Journal (Online) May 25, 2012 Friday Copyright 2012 ALM Media Properties, LLC All Rights Reserved Further duplication without permission is prohibited Length: 2327
More informationIn a recent Southern District of California decision, the court sent a
The Qualcomm Decision: Ethics In Electronic Discovery VICTORIA E. BRIEANT AND DAMON COLANGELO A recent decision reinforces the importance of a comprehensive electronic document management plan. In a recent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION MEMORANDUM CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER AND SCHEDULING
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION (MDL 2391) ) CAUSE NO. 3:12-MD-2391 ) ) ) This Document
More informationCase 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
More informationNovember/December 2010 THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN INNS OF COURT. rofessionalism. Ethics Issues. and. Today s. Technology. www.innsofcourt.
November/December 2010 THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN INNS OF COURT rofessionalism and Ethics Issues in Today s Technology www.innsofcourt.org Transparency in E-Discovery: No Longer a Novel Approach By Michael
More informationPICTERA. What Is Intell1gent One? Created by the clients, for the clients SOLUTIONS
PICTERA SOLUTIONS An What Is Intell1gent One? Created by the clients, for the clients This white paper discusses: Understanding How Intell1gent One Saves Time and Money Using Intell1gent One to Save Money
More informationA Practitioner s Guide to Statistical Sampling in E-Discovery. October 16, 2012
A Practitioner s Guide to Statistical Sampling in E-Discovery October 16, 2012 1 Meet the Panelists Maura R. Grossman, Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Gordon V. Cormack, Professor at the David
More informationTechnology Assisted Review: Don t Worry About the Software, Keep Your Eye on the Process
Technology Assisted Review: Don t Worry About the Software, Keep Your Eye on the Process By Joe Utsler, BlueStar Case Solutions Technology Assisted Review (TAR) has become accepted widely in the world
More informationDispelling E-Discovery Myths in Internal and Government Investigations By Amy Hinzmann
Dispelling E-Discovery Myths in Internal and Government Investigations By Amy Hinzmann Chances are, if you re a junior to mid-level attorney in a securities litigation practice, you ve been staffed on
More informationQuality Control for predictive coding in ediscovery. kpmg.com
Quality Control for predictive coding in ediscovery kpmg.com Advances in technology are changing the way organizations perform ediscovery. Most notably, predictive coding, or technology assisted review,
More informationPresenters: Brett Anders, Esq. Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Esq., CIPP/US. Morristown, NJ
Presenters: Brett Anders, Esq. Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Esq., CIPP/US Morristown, NJ 1 Preservation Privacy & Data Security Search & Review 2 Pre-Litigation Data Map Litigation Hold Procedure Standardized
More informationThe Benefits of. in E-Discovery. How Smart Sampling Can Help Attorneys Reduce Document Review Costs. A white paper from
The Benefits of Sampling in E-Discovery How Smart Sampling Can Help Attorneys Reduce Document Review Costs A white paper from 615.255.5343 dsi.co 414 Union Street, Suite 1210 Nashville, TN 37219-1771 Table
More informationOutlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions
William Mitchell E-Discovery Symposium Outlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions Mary T. Novacheck, Esq. Partner Bowman and Brooke LLP Outlaw's Motion: Cost Shift Vendor Fees to Willow Prior
More informationCase4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised
More informationTHE CORPORATE COUNSELOR
THE CORPORATE COUNSELOR NOVEMBER 2013 Third-Party Litigation Investing and Attorney-Client Privilege By David A. Prange Civil litigation is potentially expensive, and achieving lucrative outcomes is not
More informationPower-Up Your Privilege Review: Protecting Privileged Materials in Ediscovery
Power-Up Your Privilege Review: Protecting Privileged Materials in Ediscovery Jeff Schomig, WilmerHale Stuart Altman, Hogan Lovells Joe White, Kroll Ontrack Sheldon Noel, Kroll Ontrack (moderator) April
More informationAcknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth. CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1. CHAPTER 2 Third-Party Experts 25
Acknowledgments Introduction: Welcome to the Labyrinth xi xiii CHAPTER 1 Gathering the Evidence 1 Form 1.1: General Preliminary Electronic Evidence Questions for Your Client 3 Form 1.2: Checklist to Define
More informationPredictive Coding Defensibility
Predictive Coding Defensibility Who should read this paper The Veritas ediscovery Platform facilitates a quality control workflow that incorporates statistically sound sampling practices developed in conjunction
More information(Previously published in The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2011) New Cost Guidelines for E-Discovery by Peter Vaira
(Previously published in The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2011) New Cost Guidelines for E-Discovery by Peter Vaira In a recent case in the Eastern District, Judge Legrome Davis upheld court costs of
More informationRule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver. (a) Scope of waiver. In federal proceedings, the waiver by
Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Proposed Amendment: Rule 502 Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver (a) Scope of waiver. In federal proceedings, the waiver by
More informationCase 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 70 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 70 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x IN
More informationProducing Persuasive Electronic Evidence: How to prevent and prepare for
ARTICLE Producing Persuasive Electronic Evidence: How to prevent and prepare for legal disputes involving electronic signatures and electronic transactions Electronic signatures were given the same legal
More information2972 NW 60 th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Tel 954.462.5400 Fax 954.463.7500
2972 NW 60 th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Tel 954.462.5400 Fax 954.463.7500 5218 South East Street, Suite E-3, Indianapolis, IN 46227 Tel 317.247.4400 Fax 317.247.0044 Presented by Providing
More informationDISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP
DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP Presented by Frank H. Gassler, Esq. Written by Jeffrey M. James, Esq. Over the last few years,
More informationSet out below are our comments, which are quite minor, on each of the specific guidelines.
Vincent T. Chang, Chair Federal Courts Committee New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 March 20, 2013 COMMENTS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION FEDERAL COURTS
More informationElectronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys
Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have
More informationLitigation Solutions insightful interactive culling distributed ediscovery processing powering digital review
Litigation Solutions i n s i g h t f u l i n t e r a c t i ve c u l l i n g d i s t r i b u t e d e d i s cove r y p ro ce s s i n g p owe r i n g d i g i t a l re v i e w Advanced Analytical Review Data
More informationA Mediation Primer for the Plaintiff s Attorney
By: Bruce Brusavich A Mediation Primer for the Plaintiff s Attorney Making your case stand out to the other side, and what to do when they ask you to dance. Make the Defense Ask to Mediate Obtaining a
More informationBest Practices in Electronic Record Retention
A. Principles For Document Management Policies Arthur Anderson, LLD v. U.S., 544 U.S. 696 (2005) ( Document retention policies, which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00586-AWI-SAB Document 41 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-00-awi-sab Document Filed 0// Page of 0 DALE L. ALLEN, JR., SBN KEVIN P. ALLEN, SBN 0 ALLEN, GLAESSNER & WERTH, LLP 0 Montgomery Street, Suite 0 San Francisco, California 0 Telephone: () -00
More informationMaking reviews more consistent and efficient.
Making reviews more consistent and efficient. PREDICTIVE CODING AND ADVANCED ANALYTICS Predictive coding although yet to take hold with the enthusiasm initially anticipated is still considered by many
More informationSoftware-assisted document review: An ROI your GC can appreciate. kpmg.com
Software-assisted document review: An ROI your GC can appreciate kpmg.com b Section or Brochure name Contents Introduction 4 Approach 6 Metrics to compare quality and effectiveness 7 Results 8 Matter 1
More informationCase 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. RAFAEL COMAS, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
More informationeops 2010: Electronic Discovery Operational Parameters Survey Executive Summary April, 2010
eops 2010: Electronic Discovery Operational Parameters Survey Executive Summary April, 2010 Better information will make E-Discovery more efficient. The multi-billion dollar electronic discovery market
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle May 2013 (1)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle May 2013 (1) A Cost-Cutting Solution to the Discovery Burdens of Antitrust Disputes James Bo Pearl & J. Hardy Ehlers O Melveny & Myers www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition
More informationWhat Happens When Litigation Starts? How Do You Get People Not To Generate the Bad Documents?
Document Retention and Destruction in Oregon What Happens When Litigation Starts? How Do You Get People Not To Generate the Bad Documents? Timothy W. Snider (503) 294-9557 twsnider@stoel.com Stoel Rives
More informationArticle originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer
Article originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer Electronic Discovery in Litigation By Douglas P. Jeremiah, P.E., Esq. Your firm is involved in litigation and you get the
More informationediscovery: The New Information Management Battleground Developments in the Law and Best Practices
Sponsored by ediscovery: The New Information Management Battleground Developments in the Law and Best Practices Kahn Consulting Inc. (847) 266-0722 info@kahnconsultinginc.com Introduction The following
More informationE-Discovery in Michigan. Presented by Angela Boufford
E-Discovery in Michigan ESI Presented by Angela Boufford DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a comprehensive examination of E-Discovery issues. You will not be an E-Discovery expert after this presentation.
More informationViewpoint ediscovery Services
Xerox Legal Services Viewpoint ediscovery Platform Technical Brief Viewpoint ediscovery Services Viewpoint by Xerox delivers a flexible approach to ediscovery designed to help you manage your litigation,
More informationXact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. Xact Data Discovery. ediscovery for DUMMIES LAWYERS. MDLA TTS August 23, 2013
MDLA TTS August 23, 2013 ediscovery for DUMMIES LAWYERS Kate Burke Mortensen, Esq. kburke@xactdatadiscovery.com Scott Polus, Director of Forensic Services spolus@xactdatadiscovery.com 1 Where Do I Start??
More information5/12/2015 AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS PURPOSE OF AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS
Pretrial Practice 2015 4:00 P.M. PANEL TOPIC SETTLEMENT AGGREGATE SETTLEMENT CONCERNS May 12, 2015 New York, New York Kelly Strange Crawford, Esq. AGGREGATE PROCEEDINGS Class Actions SINGLE LAW SUIT PROCEEDING
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-08031 Document #: 194 Filed: 06/05/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1586
Case: :0-cv-080 Document #: 94 Filed: 06/05/ Page of 5 PageID #:586 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION TILE UNLIMITED, INC., individually and as a representative
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA If you are a current or former user of PayPal in the United States who had an active PayPal account between April 19, 2006 and November
More informationMaking Sense of E-Discovery: 10 Plain Steps for Producing ESI
Making Sense of E-Discovery: 10 Plain Steps for Producing ESI The following article provides a practical guide to producing electronically stored information (ESI) that lawyers can apply immediately in
More informationPredictive Coding: E-Discovery Game Changer?
PAGE 11 Predictive Coding: E-Discovery Game Changer? By Melissa Whittingham, Edward H. Rippey and Skye L. Perryman Predictive coding promises more efficient e- discovery reviews, with significant cost
More informationTHE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) AND DISCOVERY TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR ACCESSING AGENCY RECORDS AND THE BENEFITS OF LEVERAGING E-
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) AND DISCOVERY TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR ACCESSING AGENCY RECORDS AND THE BENEFITS OF LEVERAGING E- DISCOVERY TOOLS FOR FOIA The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 12-CV-1210
First American Title Insurance Company v. Westbury Bank Doc. 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-CV-1210 WESTBURY
More informationConference Cooperation Proclamation
The Sedona Conference Working Group Series The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation Dialogue Designed to Move the Law Forward in a Reasoned and Just Way The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation
More informationIMPROVING SETTLEMENT SAVVY. Kathy Perkins Kathy Perkins LLC, Workplace Law & Mediation www.kathy-perkins.com
IMPROVING SETTLEMENT SAVVY Kathy Perkins Kathy Perkins LLC, Workplace Law & Mediation www.kathy-perkins.com In these difficult economic times, parties may be looking to reduce litigation costs and risk
More informationto Consolidate, ECF No. 13,1 filedon August 21, 2014. Therein, Sprinkle argued that this Court
Case 2:14-cv-00251-LRL Document 21 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use ofsprinkle
More informationElectronic Discovery. Answers to life s enduring questions
Electronic Discovery Answers to life s enduring questions 1 Electronic Discovery 1. Requirements: What do courts expect? 2. Potential consequences of missteps? Sanctions and unnecessary expense 3. Solutions:
More informationBook Review THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERY HANDBOOK: FORMS, CHECKLISTS, AND GUIDELINES
Book Review THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERY HANDBOOK: FORMS, CHECKLISTS, AND GUIDELINES by Sharon D. Nelson, Bruce A. Olson and John W. Simek American Bar Association 2006 745 pp. Reviewed by William
More informationGuidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court
Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Preamble The following are guidelines for attorneys and non-lawyer volunteers appointed as guardians ad litem for children in most family
More informationManaging Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information Under Proposed Amendments To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Discovery Managing Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information Under Proposed Amendments To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure by Michael C. Lynch and Lystra Batchoo Kelley
More informationfor Insurance Claims Professionals
A Practical Guide to Understanding ediscovery for Insurance Claims Professionals ediscovery Defined and its Relationship to an Insurance Claim Simply put, ediscovery (or Electronic Discovery) refers to
More informationACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL ******************************************************************************
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: 8.D DATE: March 15, 2007 ****************************************************************************** SUBJECT: Electronic Records Discovery Electronic records management
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. 1cv JM (JLB)
More informationCase 2:14-cv-02159-KHV-JPO Document 12 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:14-cv-02159-KHV-JPO Document 12 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those
More information