Blah, Blah, Blahg

As we noted in “A Few Recent Cases,” the frequency with which cases have had to address mobile device issues has steadily increased over the past few years. From preservation obligations, to proportionality challenges, to privacy concerns, mobile devices have become a discovery battleground. In this Part, we conclude our chronological review of a sampling of those recent cases and see what additional guidance can be gleaned from them.

As we noted in the last Part, the frequency with which cases have had to address mobile device issues has steadily increased over the past few years. From preservation obligations, to proportionality challenges, to privacy concerns, mobile devices have become a discovery battleground. In this Part, we continue our chronological review of an assortment of those cases to see what additional guidance can be gleaned from them.

Our monthly legal eDiscovery news round-up features a new XDD acquisition, new EU/UK data privacy developments, and new US data privacy developments, as well as recent cases and new XDD educational content.

Over the past few years, the frequency with which cases have had to address mobile device issues has steadily increased. From preservation obligations, to proportionality challenges, to privacy concerns, mobile devices have become a discovery battleground. In this Part, and in Parts to come, we will review an assortment of these cases, in chronological order, to see what additional guidance can be gleaned from them.

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 Part, we turn our attention to second of our five aspects of review: for what your review set gets reviewed, including: relevance and responsiveness, privilege, confidentiality, and deposition preparation.

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.