Blog

Mobile devices are an absolute necessity in our everyday life. When it comes to litigation (or potential litigation), our beloved devices are usually subject to discovery as they may contain information that is relevant to proving or disproving a case. As a result, when developing a data collection strategy, mobile devices must be considered. Mobile devices may now be as valuable as the more typical sources of information, namely personal computers and network locations, and with this newly-recognized discovery relevance comes a potential for trouble.

This past summer, Kilpatrick Townsend Senior E-Discovery Attorney Katie King participated in an E-Discovery Sanctions webinar, where she shared practice tips to protect your clients and your reputation.  Learn more about those tips here.

In one sense, “proportionality” is about balance: weighing the pros and cons of an action in order to decide if that action is justified. For example: Is the cost worth the potential benefit? When applied to law, the concept of proportionality is central to the extent, limits and reasonableness of discovery in litigation. In this article, I’ve included some tips and tricks of the trade that your e-discovery professional (whether that be a project manager, e-discovery attorney or other specialist) can offer to help you work towards that elusive notion of proportionality.

This is Part Two of a series on the perils of redacting non-responsive but sensitive material during pre-trial discovery. In Part One, we focused on cases against non-responsive redactions. In Part Two, we shift to cases allowing non-responsive redactions and provide our conclusory thoughts.