E-Discovery Best Practices

  • Privilege
    Legal Updates

    Risks of Waiving Privilege for Third Party Litigants When Producing Documents to the Government

    Waiver of privilege and particularly inadvertent waiver of privilege is always a concern in e-discovery when producing documents to an outside party. Not only may your current litigation be affected but waiver may also affect your client’s future litigations and other litigation teams that had no involvement with your production. This is a particularly serious concern when producing documents to the government, given the power dynamics involved.

  • Masks
    Legal Updates

    Life After COVID 19: E-Discovery Considerations for Attorneys and Clients

    Life around the world has significantly changed in the last three months. From job losses, homeschooling, and working from home, daily life is not the same as it was in February. The world of E-Discovery has not been immune. Law firms and service providers have been forced to adapt to a quickly changing environment. From an E-Discovery perspective, the use of these remote working tools creates new data sources for preservation and collection. Diligent attorneys and clients would be wise to consider and discuss how these tools might impact the phases of E-Discovery moving forward.

  • Platform Mojo
    Technology Advantage

    Platform-Agnostic Search Mojo!

    Searching is a core e-discovery skill that has been a part of the legal case landscape for about two decades now. Throughout that time, the fundamental capabilities for keyword searching have not changed much. However, my experience has shown that crafting a good, effective search a core e-discovery technical (and artistic!) skill. This blog offers insight into how to do just that.

  • Shifting Costs
    Legal Updates

    Shifting Costs for Responding to Subpoenas Under FRCP 45

    Generally speaking, the presumption is that third parties will bear at least some of the costs of complying with proper subpoenas. That said, Courts often expect that a requesting party will negotiate in good faith the costs of compliance and, if those costs are significant, the requesting party would agree to cover at least some of the costs or limit its requests in light of the requirement of FRCP 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). As demonstrated by a recent case, though FRCP 45 provides two avenues for a third party to recover its costs for responding to a subpoena in federal litigation, such awards are the exception to the rule.

  • When Good Business Sense Doesn’t Make Good Legal Sense
    Legal Updates

    When Good Business Sense Doesn’t Make Good Legal Sense

    In my role as a Senior E-Discovery Attorney, I often provide guidance to organizations in how to develop and implement policies governing data retention and disposition. When developing those policies, it is critical to consider both the business and legal implications of preserving or deleting data and, ideally, find a balance between the two even when the concerns and priorities may not be the same. A recent case highlights what often proves to be a fundamental tension between the perspective of business stakeholders and legal stakeholders with respect to the preservation of ESI for pending or reasonably anticipated litigation in large corporations.