I had to laugh when I saw the below quote on K&L Gates’ E-Discovery Blog.
When dealing with discovery, there is a need to find the right balance between collecting all the potentially relevant data in the universe and the cost to do so. But, how does one do that while complying one’s discovery obligations? In general, you need to show good faith that you preserved relevant evidence. Moreover, FRCP 37(c)(1) requires substantial justification for “non-compliance” with FRCP 26 production obligations. Therefore, when defending a motion for sanctions, you need to be able to show the reasoning behind why an item was...
Ever wondered what research is being done on the plethora of tools in the ediscovery space? In my last post, I alluded to a study in my quote from Judge Grimm’s opinion in Victor Stanley. He was referring to the Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) Legal Track administered by the US National Institute of Standards (NIST). This is an interesting program that facilitates research on the effectiveness of search methodologies. A variety of methods have been tested including Boolean queries and statistical analysis of terms across a set of data.
For years, legal software companies have been trying to figure out how to help lawyers quickly and efficiently find the needle in the discovery haystack.
Can They Be Successfully Accomplished?
I speak about cost mitigation strategies in ediscovery several times a year so it is no surprise I am a big proponent of producing documents natively. If you can skip, or limit, imaging documents, you are saving yourself a significant amount of money. I recognize that in certain cases, a native production is not appropriate (e.g. where excel formulas are proprietary). But where possible, counsel should at least consider producing all documents natively. How do you do that?