Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2011-08-01 12:09:42  The breaking Casey Anthony forensic story has delayed my recap of the first Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat last week. Luckily, Barry Murphy managed a good post on day one. Chris LaCour, the event organizer, deserves congratulations for breaking the LTNY event mold. He dared to plan a small scale, interactive format heavy with experts in a beautiful venue that encouraged open social dialogue. He recruited Browning Marean, George Socha, Barry Murphy and myself to create focused tracks featuring cutting edge topics for the panelists to debate. This was not the typical sponsor driven marketing messages, but real discussion that actively engaged the audience. I moderated three of my CLE sessions and passed the microphone to Kevin Stehr of Lexis Nexis for the “Defining the eDiscovery Platform” session. The participating providers generally limited themselves to sponsoring meals and social events, which kept the event relatively free of the marketing madness that has dominated the big NY show. I hope that this retreat signals that the eDiscovery market is willing to consider alternative academic, market and social events.Having the first session of the event puts a certain amount of pressure on you. We launched the “Validation Testing” session by pushing the audience to answer questions and refused to stick to the traditional ‘death by power point’ format. Each session had the required CLE presentation deck and take-aways, which we promptly ignored as I ran around the floor taking audience questions and putting everyone on the spot. It was an enormous amount of fun. The audience stumped Magistrate Judge Peck with an excellent question on cost shifting when the responding party does not trust the requesting party’s security. Herb Roitblat (OrcaTec) went deep into post-process sampling, debunking the routine X% sampling practices. Jason Velasco led a spirited discussion around vetting your chosen providers, with excellent pointers like blind onsite visits and employee privacy agreements. We had an audience of 70+ and it was one of the most interactive conference sessions that I have ever participated in. Attached is our CLE presentation deck.Validation Testing Session Presentation DeckThe afternoon “Protecting Sensitive Corporate ESI in Discovery” session immediately dove into real world stories on the sources and the categories of sensitive email, attachments and more that the panel has encountered in collections and productions. The McDermott case engendered some lively discussion with the audience, but my primary take away was that our best identification/filtering technology still requires human eyes to be effective. Aaron Crews (Littler) brought a wealth of trade secret discovery experience to the discussion. Andrew Clauss (Rockies Legal) led our discussion of protective orders, clawback agreements and the legal protection methods. Maureen O’Neil (DiscoverReady) covered the practical side of designating and producing sensitive ESI during the review phase. There was some good discussion of clustering and similarity technology to enhance speed and quality. We did not get the time to dive into the new auto redaction offerings on the market, but I have started a research project on several of the leading products, so we should get you some interesting feedback soon. Last thanks is to Erik Laykin (Duff and Phelps) for the firm practice management perspective.Protecting Sensitive Corporate ESI in Discovery Session Presentation Deck I should get recaps of my other two sessions up this week. I hope that you enjoy the materials and wish that we had taped the sessions to preserve the great interaction. Although we already have webinars planned for September (Information Governance survey) and October (Enacting Legal Holds on Corporate Archives), I may try to get my panelists back for a webinar replay to expand on the topics. Throw me a note at Greg@eDiscoveryJournal.com if you would be interested.

0 0 votes
Article Rating