Blog

Two of the most compelling discovery sanction cases of the past year are Klipsch Group., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd. and Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle, both decided in the Second Circuit. In the first, the court awarded $2.68 million in discovery sanctions in a case valued at a mere $20,000. In the second, the court issued an adverse inference when a defendant failed to preserve text messages held by a non-party. The implications of both decisions appear far-reaching and critically important for those involved in the discovery process.     

Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 902 went into effect on December 1, 2017. One of the primary objectives of the amendments was to simplify the process of admitting into evidence electronically stored information (ESI), hopefully reducing discovery costs and burdens along the way. Specifically, the amendments added two new paragraphs: (1) FRE 902(13), which addresses records generated by an electronic process or system; and (2) FRE 902(14), which addresses data copied from an electronic device, storage medium or file, and contains a digital identification (a/k/a “hash value”). While addressing these important changes, the focus here is on the implications of these amendments for litigation support professionals.

A couple of weeks ago, I had an enlightening conversation with an attorney who recently joined our firm. He is a fairly experienced database user who asked me if we had specific database training for attorneys and made an interesting comment: "I don't just want to know how it works; I want to know how to really use it." In other words, how can I leverage e-discovery technology in order to make my job more efficient, more effectual and offer better value for my client?

So, you’re deep in the weeds of your latest e-discovery project for an important client and things are going smoothly. An email now arrives from the review team flagged as urgent and with the tag line, “Take a look at this document, it’s got some pretty sensitive info - that isn't relevant - and I’m pretty sure the client won’t be happy sending this out.” Just redact it, right? At least one court disagrees.