If you didn't find what you were looking for, try a new search!
Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Babs Deacon. Published: 2012-12-28 04:00:34Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. Winter is the perfect time to implement your personal retention policy. When I say personal, I mean the records in your home: taxes, warranties, [...]
Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2013-01-15 04:00:02Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. With Legal Tech New York fast approaching, the eDJ team has been working overtime to roll out all the functionality for the new eDiscovery [...]
Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2013-01-23 08:40:22Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. Are you ready for next week at LegalTech New York? I can’t say that I am ready yet, but I and the eDJ team [...]
This past Tuesday, I had a chance to participate in the eDiscoveryJournal webinar, “TAR: From 10,000 Feet To Ten Feet, Let’s Get In The Weeds.” Without any hint of hyperbole, I can honestly rank it in the top two webinars I have ever been part of. You know a webinar is good when you have a hard time getting all the way through the content and the audience fires a continuous stream of questions throughout. Not only that, but also virtually all attendees stayed until the end, which happened to be fast minutes past the end time.
Information Governance (IG) was much simpler when information existed in paper form. Important documents were classified as records and sent to a central location to be filed and stored. That central information store was the go-to source for information when litigation or regulatory requests arose. There was a certain comfort in having that central control over information. Today, however, times have changed and that comfort level has been destroyed.
Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2013-03-05 05:37:02Format, images and links may no longer function correctly. Counsel have always struggled to balance preservation obligations against unreasonable interference in the custodian’s ability to function in day to day business. To [...]
Businesses of all sizes are migrating files from unstructured file shares to onsite and cloud based content collaboration systems at a remarkable rate. Microsoft’s SharePoint 2010 and 2013 are finally seeing rapid adoption and eDJ working analysts have seen increasing inquiries on managing eDiscovery and compliance risks in these new environments. Almost all of these new ESI repositories come with search indexes to support the end user experience and to satisfy new information governance requirements like the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. We will be publishing a research report on the IT impact of the new ‘corporate transparency’ mandates shortly, but I wanted to explore the risks and benefits of leveraging the ‘in-place’ search indexes.
Information Governance (IG) is an incredibly complex task thanks to the distributed ways in which companies create and store information. The holy grail of IG is centralized management of distributed information assets. Much like the King Arthur’s grail, this IG grail is difficult, if not impossible, to find. Enterprise Content Management (ECM) approaches have not worked and enterprise search has not proven to impact the high costs associated with such activities as eDiscovery. That doesn’t stop vendors from trying to create solutions that will get us closer to finding that holy grail, as I was reminded of during a recent vendor briefing.
It has been a topic du jour, but social media discovery does not seem to be gaining the mindshare one might expect given the explosion in usage of social media. Almost 65% of respondents in eDJ’s social experience survey indicate using external social networks (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) at work. I will not go into the litany of case law regarding the discoverability of social media in criminal and civil litigation. There are many JDs out there more qualified to dig into precedents and what they mean. Suffice it to say that social media is potentially discoverable and ignoring it could lead to sanctions, adverse inferences, and higher than expected eDiscovery costs.
Many of the articles and blogs concerning the ruling in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Discovery Works Legal Inc., et al., Case No. 650210/2013 will try to tell you that these kinds of alleged provider misconduct are rare and isolated incidents. Indeed, attorney Michael G. Van Arsdall’s January article asserts, “Of course, there is a very low likelihood such a hostage situation would ever arise with the larg number of reputable vendors that occupy the e-discovery space.” I found Mr. Arsdall’s excellent recommendations for handling providers recycled through numerous blogs/articles without anyone questioning his basic assumption that you should not have issues with ‘reputable vendors’. I wish that business practices in our industry were somehow special, different or above the basic conflicts in the global consumer-provider market that litigation thrives on. We all make our livelihood on bad business deals. So why should eDiscovery providers be any different? Buy any experienced litigation support manager a few libations and then ask them about the ‘bad’ vendors. Then do the same thing with any eDiscovery sales rep and compare the stories. The eDiscovery market is still a relatively immature industry founded on emergency, reactive services purchased with someone else’s money under adversarial conditions.