Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for July 2020 features the end of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Program, a new safe harbor in New Jersey, law firm cybersecurity concerns, and continuing adaption to remote work due to COVID-19, as well as new noteworthy cases, new useful publications, and a variety of new XDD educational content.
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a framework that – until recently – was relied upon by more than 5,000 organizations to transfer data from the EU to the U.S. without running afoul of EU privacy protections. On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a judgement invalidating the Privacy Shield framework and casting doubt on whether Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) can be used for EU-to-U.S. transfers instead.
By October 2019, Microsoft reported that it had surpassed 200 million commercial monthly active users of Office 365 (now called Microsoft 365). With such widespread usage, Microsoft 365 has become a common discovery source and a challenging one. So, just what sorts of materials might be in Microsoft 365? What eDiscovery features might be available? What limitations and complications do practitioners need to consider?
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for June 2020 features continuing industry adaptation to COVID-19 and some new data privacy developments, as well as new noteworthy cases, new useful publications, and a variety of new XDD educational content.
For several years now, use of the workplace collaboration and messaging tool Slack has been growing exponentially, first augmenting and then starting to supplant email usage within many organizations. With such widespread usage, Slack has started to become a common source for discovery. So, just what sorts of materials are in Slack? How can those materials be preserved and collected? What special challenges does Slack data present?
Working with video can be more challenging and time-consuming than working with other types of ESI. Who should bear that burden: the law enforcement agencies charged with preparing the video or the individuals and organizations requesting it? Recently, in the case of National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, the California Supreme Court addressed how this question should be answered under the California Public Records Act (PRA).
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for May 2020 features more industry adaptation to COVID-19 plus cybersecurity concerns, California regulations, and social media risks, as well as new cases, new publications, and new XDD educational content.
FRCP 37(e) was amended in December 2015 in an attempt to increase the consistency and predictability with which sanctions for the spoliation of electronically-stored information (ESI) were applied. Since those amendments, numerous cases have explored the application of the amended rule and wrestled with questions regarding intent to deprive, inherent authority, and more. These issues were recently explored again in the WeRide case.
We have discussed before some litigants’ attempts to obtain non-public social media materials by subpoenaing those materials directly from the social media service providers, which run up against the Stored Communications Act (SCA). Recently, this issue has arisen again in the case of Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. A157143 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2020).
We have discussed before the question of whether or not one party can compel another party to utilize a technology-assisted review methodology for discovery. Recently, in the case of In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litig., Case No. 2:16-cv-881 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2020), a Special Master revisited this question to resolve a discovery impasse over one side’s desire to employ a “custodian-and-search-term approach.”