Search results for: simple

Chris La Cour’s second annual Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat (CVEDR) has just wrapped up three days of topical, interactive discussions in beautiful, relaxed Monterey, California. Many of us who attended last year’s retreat knew that this event is a perfect opportunity to gently introduce your significant other to the eDiscovery social scene away from the crazy crowds and business intensity of Legal Tech New York. The Monterey Bay Aquarium, kayaking and other attractions kept them happily occupied while we debated questions like, “Are you obligated to disclose Technology Assisted Review (TAR) or other analytics if they are used to make relevance decisions?” It was great to see many familiar top speakers and providers, but I do hope that more entry level corporations and law firms realize how valuable these smaller events are to new eDiscovery professionals. CVEDR tries to avoid ‘death by power point’ and the classic bobble-headed panelists reading from notes with those familiar droning Charlie Brown style teacher voices. Instead, the event has four themes each with five related topic sessions per track. That’s a lot of content and expertise crammed into two and a half days.

The story about Michigan State Police officers collecting forensic snapshots of mobile phones during traffic stops back in April kicked off my long research journey into whether corporate mobile discovery was really feasible. After lengthy interviews with leading experts in mobile phone forensics, I can assure you that a full physical acquisition of your iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry or Android device is just not going to happen during a typical 30 minute custodian interview or a traffic stop. The connectors and communication protocols of mobile devices were not designed for high speed data exports that we have come to expect from enterprise back up systems and disk imaging devices like Logicube. The ‘pipe’ is just too small to copy 8+ GB without taking custody of the device. You can grab the active call log, text messages and other phone elements quickly, but that kind of logical extraction may not suffice to ‘preserve’ your custodian’s ESI in some matters, especially if that device may be the only source of deleted items that are critical to proving your case.

The last week of summer was more hectic than usual because I spent Monday and Tuesday at the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) conference. Unlike other eDiscovery conferences, this had a more casual feel, with lots of attendees in shorts, tee shirts, and flip flops. I had a chance to meet with several vendors and colleagues and three themes kept coming up: technology-assisted review (TAR); the role of managed services in the eDiscovery market; and pricing models.

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Lynn Frances Jae. Published: 2012-09-05 09:00:29  When I went to the demo for Nytrix, I thought that I would be reviewing a new review tool. So, I was surprised when the demo was as much about [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Greg Buckles. Published: 2012-09-07 11:24:59  This year’s International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) conference was laid back and casual compared to the hectic buzz of Legal Tech New York.   I heard good things about the session speakers [...]

The inFusion 12 conference next week has me thinking about the differences between the platform and point product approaches to in house corporate eDiscovery. Preparing slides and panelist questions for my sessions brought one challenge of the traditional eDiscovery relay race into focus for me. The obvious performance and strategic advantages to a centralized corporate platform include early direct access to ESI in the wild, single instance collection storage, shared indexes, cross matter designations and universal chain of custody. Recouping these advantages usually requires a significant investment in the classic maturity triad; people, process and technology. ILTA booth displays clearly demonstrated that providers are investing in workflow and collaboration features in the attempt to be the primary eDiscovery interface for their customers. So what pain point are customers feeling? The ubiquitous EDRM diagram answered that question for me. Created in 20XX, this model gave the nascent eDiscovery market a common vocabulary and lifecycle explanation when most counsel were still printing email and office documents for hard copy review. I missed that first year’s project, but gladly contributed to the expanding body of projects as the scope and scale of eDiscovery challenges exploded. The connectors between EDRM phases clearly demonstrate the traditional eDiscovery ‘telephone game’ where ESI was collected, processed and transferred between distinct teams. We all know the danger of passing a simple message around the camp fire, now imagine how that natural distortion is amplified through transformation of formats, load files and verbal instructions. So are you still playing this game?

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Amber Scorah. Published: 2012-09-19 09:00:29  INTERVIEW WITH Former United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Jersey, Ronald HedgesFormer United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Jersey, Ronald Hedges, will be giving perspectives on ESI Production and [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Mikki Tomlinson. Published: 2012-11-08 09:05:05  Last month marked the 9th anniversary of the Zubulake IV opinion, wherein US District Judge  Shira A. Scheindlin clearly defined a party’s duty to preserve ESI “…and put in place a [...]

Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Karl Schieneman. Published: 2012-11-13 09:00:05  My last two posts have focused on the predictive coding metrics that so many eDiscovery professionals are waiting for with bated breath.  What is the real problem here?  It’s not that [...]

Sometimes the same story can play out over and over again, albeit with slightly different twists. As a Forrester Research analyst in 2005, I co-authored a report titled “The Enterprise Content Management Dilemma: Point Solution Or Suite.” The premise was simple: a content management platform that could manage all information for all purposes (persuasive for marketing and sales, knowledge for employee use, records retention for compliance and risk) made more sense in theory than multiple applications to manage all that information.