Last summer, in Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, Case No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan. June 18, 2020), a Magistrate Judge issued an order on shifting discovery costs that “may become the new ‘gold standard’” model for analysis of such motions under FRCP 26(c)(1)(B). That order was later upheld by the Judge in the case, resulting in the shifting to the requesting party of over $750,000 in costs associated with conducting a technology-assisted review process and almost $100,000 in expenses associated with the application.
As we discussed last year, use of the workplace collaboration and messaging tool Slack has been growing exponentially, and Slack has started to become a common source for the discovery of relevant materials. Recently, a debate over the discovery of Slack messages arose in another case: Benebone v. Pet Qwerks, et al., No. 8:20-cv-00850-AB-AFMx (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021).
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for March 2021 features Missouri rule changes, sanctions trends, the role of judges, privacy law developments, and text message risks, as well as noteworthy new cases and an assortment of new XDD educational materials.
Handling eDiscovery for DOJ or FTC second requests can be a difficult challenge. The majority of eDiscovery work takes place in the context of litigation, but a significant amount of it also takes place in the context of regulatory agency investigations. Among the most challenging types of such investigations are second requests. Although the available ESI and eDiscovery tools are the same, handling and responding to eDiscovery for second requests is different from handling eDiscovery for litigation.
As smartphones and social media communication channels have become more frequent sources, so too have emoji shown up more frequently in cases. Examples range from landlord disputes to sex trafficking cases. As they increase in frequency, emoji are creating special challenges for eDiscovery and litigation – both technical challenges and challenges of interpretation.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for February 2021 features privacy law updates, a data-driven spoliation analysis, and ongoing cybersecurity issues, as well as noteworthy cases, a useful new publications, and new XDD educational materials on mobile message review and production.
Mobile devices have become frequent sources of relevant ESI in litigation. As mobile device sources have rapidly increased in number and importance, practitioners have struggled to adapt to these evolving expectations and challenges. Among those challenges is the question of what format to use for the production (or request) of mobile device data – particularly the production of mobile device messages.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for January 2021 features procedural rule changes, GDPR enforcement news, and continuing adaptation to virtual legal proceedings, as well as noteworthy cases, useful e-discovery publications, and new XDD educational materials on cyber breach investigations and technology assisted review.
As we have noted before, cyberattacks are a growing area of concern, both inside and outside of the legal industry. With so many breaches occurring and so many breach investigations being conducted, it is important to consider the discoverability of reports and other materials generated by those investigations. As two recent cases demonstrate, it can be difficult to satisfy the requirements for work product protection of such reports.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for December 2020 features an FRCP amendment, new privacy developments, and continued cybersecurity concerns, as well as new noteworthy cases, and a variety of new XDD educational materials.
Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up for November 2020 features a CRPA privacy law update, continuing adaption to COVID-19, and a discussion of two recent Sedona publications, as well as new noteworthy cases, and a variety of new XDD educational materials.
Due to the enormous volume of materials collected in some cases, parties may wish to use keyword searches followed by a TAR approach applied to the results. While search term filtering is not typically recommended by the developers of TAR tools and some parties have objected to their opponent’s use, cases have allowed parties to apply search term filtering to a document population before applying a TAR approach to the result.