Posts Tagged ‘production’
hide story details [-]
- April 23rd
-
Tiff production or Native Production? Avoiding Sanctions
Larsen v. Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corp., No. SACV 10-00401-AG (MLGx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12901 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2012) Plaintiffs’ request for production of ESI in native format,
posted at 9:21pm on Apr 23rd
- April 8th
-
International Parties Beware: You Can’t Always Hide Behind Countries’ Blocking Statutes to Escape Production of Documents in US Courts
Foreign nations seek to protect parties within their borders in international litigation by enacting “blocking statutes.” These statutes protect a party from having to produce documents or information to be used as evidence in foreign judicial or…
posted at 8:15am on Apr 8th
- March 20th
-
Venio Adds Production Capabilities to its Integrated eDiscovery Platform
Venio Systems announced the addition of production capabilities to its Venio Integrted eDiscovery Platform, allowing users to produce in .tif format without a separate document production tool. (PRWeb March 20, 2012) Read the full story at http://www.p…
posted at 3:45am on Mar 20th
- February 28th
-
Producing party must pay for discovery: appeals ct – Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Producing party must pay for discovery: appeals ctThomson Reuters News & InsightNEW YORK, Feb 28 (Reuters) – The party that produces documents in a lawsuit must bear the costs of discovery, even when it requires expensive retrieval of electronic docume…
posted at 3:06pm on Feb 28th
- February 24th
-
The Act of Production: Minimize Risk When Replying to a Subpoena
There is a trend in recent decisions that affects the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection long afforded inside counsel. The cases distinguishing between an inside lawyer’s “legal work” and her “business” functions are being applied to…
posted at 7:12am on Feb 24th
- February 6th
-
Walking the Lines of Transparency and Attorney-Client Privilege for ESI – An Interview with Sarah Jane Gillett, Partner at Hall Estill – Part Two
The line of transparency and privilege is a difficult one to walk. In part two of this interview, we discuss more issues faced by outside counsel, including some insights into asserting attorney client privilege for electronically stored information, where the line of transparency lies, and how to ensure that reasonable steps were taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure that may result in a privilege waiver. Amber Scorah (AS): How does one effectively assert attorney client privilege for electronically stored information? Sarah Jane Gillett: There is a growing debate about how to claim privilege for large groups of electronically stored information, such as volumes of email. Preparation of a log in the event of thousands of communications is extremely burdensome and time-consuming, if done email by email. While some jurisdictions continue to require a document-by-document log, other courts are more open to [...]
posted at 5:23pm on Feb 6th
- January 20th
-
Smile for the Discovery Production
In a dispute between a photographer and an educational textbook publisher, the Plaintiff sough the production of a definition list to the Defendants’ database abbreviations. Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4900, 1-3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2012). The Defendants’ sales, printing and distribution database was originally produced as screenshots and [...]
posted at 12:56pm on Jan 20th
- January 9th
-
In Search of the Industry Standard
Have you ever received a detailed project estimate from a service provider and wondered how they came up with it? I have. Unless you provided them your client specific data assumptions, they likely used “industry standards” to fill in the blanks. Hmmm. Where did these industry standards come from and how accurate are they?
posted at 10:30am on Jan 9th
- December 14th
-
So let’s get to the heart of this Predictive Coding – Technology Assisted Review thing
One recurring topic that keeps popping up was Predictive Coding, or Technology Assisted Review (we’ll use the defined term “PC-TAR” to avoid controversy from this point on). We know that using PC-TAR will help save money in the overall eDiscovery process. Albert Barsocchini recently did an article on “Ediscovery Production Without Review” last week and quoted an attorney at a major law firm that said they are producing documents without any reviewing any documents in a linear review process. This immediately raised the mental flag in my head as this was the first that I’ve heard of someone going straight to production using PC-TAR technology without first doing a human review of the responsive documents.
posted at 3:13pm on Dec 14th
- December 8th
-
Ediscovery Production Without Review
More law firms are producing electronically stored information without going through linear review. After potentially-relevant ESI has been collected and sent out for processing, the producing party is normally focused on boiling down the ocean of documents and identifying privileged documents for sequestering. Linear review of the identified subset has been the traditional last step and most expensive in the production cycle. Advanced analytics, judicial acceptance of computer aided coding, claw back/quick-peek agreements, and aggressive use of Rule 16 hearings have given attorneys a level of confidence that they can produce responsive ESI without spending time and money on a final linear review. An attorney at a major law firm recently said to me, “In many cases we just give them the documents without reviewing them. Usually after our interviews and privilege cull, we have a pretty good idea of what we have and don’t want to waste our client’s money on attorneys going through massive amounts of documents before production … and yes we do use a claw back agreement”. This cost saving production strategy will not work in every case; but should be a point of discussion in your electronic discovery planning.
posted at 3:54pm on Dec 8th