Now that you have made decisions about what you are going to review and for what you are going to review it, you need to make decisions about who is going to perform that review. Broadly speaking, your choices are internal resources (i.e., the case team, existing corporate or firm staff) and external resources (i.e., contract reviewers, managed review services).
Almost two years ago, we discussed the phenomenal power and surging popularity of mobile devices – primarily smartphones – and the implications they have for discovery. Since then, the importance of smartphones and other mobile devices as discovery sources has only grown, with new news, new cases, and new guidance all becoming available.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up features a new CEO at Relativity, a new US-EU evidence agreement in the works, and a new set of rules in Michigan, as well as recent cases, industry publications, and new XDD educational content.
In this series, we turn our attention to the most time-consuming and expensive phase of an electronic discovery effort: document review. To help you to meet its challenges, we’re going to break review down into five subparts and discuss each in turn: what gets reviewed, for what it gets reviewed, by whom it gets reviewed, workflow design considerations, and quality control. We begin, in this Part, with what gets reviewed.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up features commentary on new developments in eDiscovery and legal technology education and the importance of metadata in medical malpractice cases, as well as recent cases, industry publications, and new XDD educational content.
In our prior review of cases, we reviewed early cases that made it clear cost was just one factor among many, and that non-financial factors, such as public interest or privacy considerations, can outweigh financial ones, under the right circumstances. We conclude our review of new cases with one more case from 2018 (Henson) and one from 2019 (Santana) that both focus on privacy considerations.
In our prior review of cases, we reviewed early cases that made it clear cost was just one factor among many, and that non-financial factors can outweigh financial ones, under the right circumstances. We continue our review of new cases with three cases from 2018 exploring the importance of non-cost factors (privacy, relevance, and party resources) in proportionality analyses.
In our prior review of cases, early cases made it clear arguments about proportionality should be fact-based and specific, rather than hypothetical or vague, and ideally, they should address all factors listed in the amended rule. We begin our review of new cases with one case from the very end of 2017 and two from early 2018 that all reinforce this requirement for specific, fact-based proportionality arguments.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up features commentary on eDiscovery investment trends, emerging blockchain discovery issues, and growing concerns over cybersecurity and data breach class action suits, as well as recent cases, industry publications, and new XDD educational content.
As part of Xact Data Discovery’s mission to provide ongoing education to eDiscovery practitioners of all types, XDD is extending its long-running educational program beyond articles, practice guides, white papers, and webinars. This month, XDD is launching a new educational podcast called First Chair.
On December 1, 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to bring the existing-but-overlooked concept of proportionality front and center in an attempt to combat the runaway cost and scale of discovery in the digital era. We previously reviewed cases from the effective date of that amendment, through the end of 2017, to see how judges were applying the rule. In this update series, we will review new cases from 2018 and 2019.