Finally, a District Court case that answers the question we have all been asking “[h]ow many times can a litigant ignore his discovery obligations before his misconduct catches up with him?” Lee v. Max International, LLC, No. 10-4129 (10th Cir. May 3, 2011). In short, at least three.
The hot topic at LegalTech this year was “predictive coding” or technology assisted review. But why would you use it? Well, it can save you a ton of money on review.
Once you have chosen your vendor, it is very important to establish open lines of communication. Not only should you have a call with your vendor’s entire team at the start of the matter, but you should have constant communication as the assumptions and deadlines change. If you work together as a team, the process will go much more smoothly and both parties will be happier. Jane Gennarelli recently echoed this point in her blog post on Working Successfully with eDiscovery and Litigation Support Service Providers.
Although I advocated self-collection in my recent post about Facebook Self-Collections, I want to note that self-collections are usually not a good way to go. In fact, the ediscovery Team recently posted a blog article about the pitfalls of self-collection. Ralph Losey pointed to a recent opinion out of the Eastern District of Texas, Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), where the Court entered sanctions for bad faith withholding of evidence against a party who engaged in self-collection.
As the use of social media increases, so does its relevance to litigation. We are now seeing more and more people wanting to collect data from social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Initially, a Facebook collection meant getting a user’s permission and sending a subpoena to Facebook. But now, Facebook has streamlined the process by allowing users to collect their own information.