You are here: Home / Archives for electronic discovery

Guided Self Collect, an electronic discovery service of Global EDD Group

January 28, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Guided Self Collect™ is a service that enables the collection of electronic data from geographically dispersed locations.  After detailed consultation with the legal team and information technology staff, Global EDD Group issues specially prepared compact discs and external hard drives to be used for the collection of each custodian’s data under the guidance and supervision of Global EDD Group forensic technicians via remote communication channels.

Guided Self Collect from Global EDD Group

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: Global EDD Group Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Failure to Produce Originals Could be Spoliation in Third Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law

January 26, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., — F.3d —, 2012 WL 10932 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2012)

In this case, the appellate court concluded that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,” but found that in the present case, the District Court abused its discretion in finding that spoliation had occurred and in imposing a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

The plaintiff in this case failed to produce two original notes from her doctor (but did produce copies during discovery).  During trial, when plaintiff’s counsel attempted to introduce a copy of one of the notes, defendant objected on the basis of best evidence.  In the sidebar that followed and in subsequent questioning of the plaintiff by the court, it became clear that there was some confusion between plaintiff and counsel as to the existence of the originals.  Ultimately, plaintiff indicated that the original note “should be” at her home and the there was no reason she did not search for it previously.  This contradicted her attorney’s representation that the plaintiff had been asked for the originals and reported that she could not find them.  Accordingly, the District Court declared a mistrial and invited the defendant to file a motion for sanctions.  Plaintiff produced the original doctor’s notes to the court five days later.  Thereafter, upon consideration of defendant’s motion for sanctions, the District Court invoked its inherent authority and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed.

via Failure to Produce Originals Could be Spoliation in Third Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

When Is A Local Resource Not A Good Option For E-Discovery Services?

January 25, 2012 By Leave a Comment

It is not uncommon to read posts, tweets and emails within the litigation support industry with a firm, corporation or vendor urgently seeking “local” resources at a distant location, whether it be here in the United States or at points around the globe.  While sometimes it is simply a matter of practicality, more often than not it is a desperate attempt to satisfy a client who refuses to acknowledge the terms “travel” or “remote” as part of a polite conversation.  Why might this be?  Well, historically these terms have often resulted in unexpectedly large invoices due to high hourly fees and premium airfare requirements.

One should note that there are a number of locations in the world where there simply is not enough local demand to support a legal technology business.  Many legal systems outside of the US and UK do not have discovery and disclosure requirements, thus there a few resources to support such services.  Not only can this be noted for global finance centers such as Shanghai, Zurich and Dubai, but many regions in the United States where there is not a demand for electronic discovery services.  Some scanning and reprographics shops have taken the initiative to invest in the appropriate software, but unfortunately may not have the in-house knowledge and experience to execute the requirements of a project successfully.  This leaves critical decisions for the corporation and firm involved in a case – blindly search for an unknown vendor with unproven skills or leverage a relationship with a specialist that has a range of direct experience and experience?  At what point does cost – or perceived cost – outweigh potential risks such as spoliation?

There are, however, a growing number of options to the historical norms within the industry.   Boutique companies such as Global EDD Group are bridging the gap between organizations and their growing national and international electronic discovery needs by leveraging proven experience, low operational expenses and an extensive network of resources to offer clients legal technology services around the globe at price points typically associated with local vendors.

So, the next time you have a cross-border or geographically-dispersed matter with e-discovery requirements, take a moment to evaluate all of the options available to you and your client.  You might be very surprised at the robust options available for high quality remote/onsite services.

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News, Global EDD Group Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Global EDD Group Celebrates The Year Of The Dragon With Expanded Asia Pacific Services

January 24, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Regional Resources Expanded To Include Singapore-based Early Case Assessment Tools, Document Review Platforms and CJK First Pass Review Services

Singapore, SG and Cleveland, Ohio, USA – (24 January 2011) – Global Electronic Discovery & Disclosure Group (“Global EDD Group”), a boutique consulting firm that provides innovative electronic discovery solutions across the globe, today announced the expansion of electronic discovery services offered by Global EDD Group (APAC) to law firms, corporations and vendors supporting litigation, mergers and investigations originating from the United States.

With the recent expansion, Global EDD Group (APAC) now is able to offer the following services within the Asia Pacific region:

◊  Data Collection, Preservation & Analysis
◊  Imaging & Coding
◊  Unicode OCR
◊  Automated Language Translation
◊  ESI Processing
◊  Early Case Assessment Tools (Singapore-based Hosting)
◊  Document Review Platform (SIngapore-based Hosting)
◊  Chinese, Japanese & Korean (CJK) First Pass Review
◊  Onsite Processing & Review Systems

Law Firms , Corporations and Vendors interested in learning more about the services offered by Global EDD Group should call +1.888.690.DATA (3282), email info@globaledd.asia, or visit http://www.e-discovery.asia for additional information.

About Global EDD Group (APAC)

Global EDD Group (APAC) provides or manages a wide range of electronic discovery services throughout the Asia-Pacific region from a central technology hub in Singapore, SG. Global EDD Group (APAC) shares resources with sister company Litigation Edge Pte Ltd (www.litiedge.com), a Singapore e-discovery consultancy where Global EDD Group President Brad Mixner serves as a Director.

About Global EDD Group

Global Electronic Discovery & Disclosure Group (“Global EDD Group”) was founded with the vision of bridging the wide gap between domestic organizations and their growing national and international legal technology needs. Based in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, Global EDD Group provides legal technology services for matters with a national or international scope, specializing in remote and onsite services ranging from data identification to document review. Additional information is available by visiting http://www.GlobalEDDGroup.com .

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News, Global EDD Group Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking Into E-Discovery | ABA Law Practice Today (Sally Kane)

January 19, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The legal industry is slow to embrace change and adopt new practices.  However, the past two decades have witnessed the dawn of the digital age and, with it, advancements in technology that have reshaped the legal landscape.  This evolving technology and recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have spawned a new and lucrative law practice specialty: electronic discovery.  The e-discovery niche, which combines the legal expertise of attorneys with the technical skills of IT professionals, is one of the fastest growing specialties in the legal industry.

Increasing volumes of electronically stored information (ESI), evolving e-discovery case law, the automation of legal processes, changing ESI protocols and harsher judicial sanctions have fueled the need for e-discovery specialists.  In response to this trend, a growing number of firms are investing in consultative e-discovery talent by establishing dedicated e-discovery practice groups or, in smaller firms, creating the role of an e-discovery attorney.  According to a 2011 survey by The Cowen Group, a legal technology staffing firm, 30% of firms are adding e-discovery attorneys, with an anticipated 150-250 openings at major law firms.

E-discovery attorneys operate under a variety of titles:  electronic discovery advisor, e-discovery counsel, EDD partner, electronic discovery consultant, special counsel, e-discovery specialist, and e-discovery director are a few. Most e-discovery attorneys work in law firms serving corporate clients although a growing number of attorneys are developing niche e-discovery roles within corporations and government agencies. Responsibilities vary according to practice environment and firm size.  Below are a few of the roles the e-discovery attorney may tackle.

via Breaking Into E-Discovery.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Efficient E-Discovery: How Will Model Order Impact Eastern District Practice? | Texas Lawyer

November 28, 2011 By Leave a Comment

In September, the Advisory Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a model order that limits electronic discovery in patent litigation. The Eastern District of Texas judges plan to meet in February to discuss the model order, but lawyers already have followed its guidance in several cases pending in the patent-heavy district.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Love of Tyler has granted an order limiting e-discovery in at least one case pending in his court based on the model order.

In general, the model order limits parties requesting electronic discovery to a total of five search terms per custodian party. The parties jointly may agree to modify this limit without the court’s leave.

But if a party serves production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the court, the requesting party must “bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery.”

“Our objective was to bring efficiency and reasonableness to the expensive discovery process,” say Randall Rader, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And he’s pleased that some lawyers in the Eastern District are using the model order as a template for handling discovery in patent cases.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis of Tyler, who will become the chief judge of the Eastern District next year, says the judges in the district will discuss a committee report on the model order at their February meeting.

Davis says, “I think [Judge Rader has] raised a very legitimate concern, primarily around the cost of email production. The question is: What is the best way to reduce that but at the same time give people the discovery that they need?”

via Texas Lawyer – Efficient E-Discovery: How Will Model Order Impact Eastern District Practice?.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Be Careful What You Ask for: Loser Pays Prevailing Party Electronic Discovery Costs (Again) | Morgan Lewis – JDSupra

November 28, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Following on the heels of Race Tires II,[1] which awarded electronic discovery costs in favor of the prevailing party, several recent awards suggest that when deciding whether to pursue litigation, parties should take into consideration the costs of electronic discovery — and the discovery methods used — as courts are increasingly taxing nonprevailing parties for the costs of electronic discovery.

Recently, courts in California and Pennsylvania found that the prevailing party can recover electronic discovery costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. The types of costs awarded under Rule 54 depend upon a court’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), which lists “fees for exemplification and the cost of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case,” as taxable, or recoverable, costs. In each of the four cases below, the court found that electronic discovery costs related to the duplication and production of data in discovery were recoverable.

Please see full article below for more information.

via Be Careful What You Ask for: Loser Pays Prevailing Party Electronic Discovery Costs (Again) | Morgan Lewis – JDSupra.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , ,

TAMING THE E-DISCOVERY BEAST : IP Legal Watch

November 25, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Federal Circuit’s proposed Model Order on E-Discovery offers a number of good suggestions that should help reduce the burden of electronic discovery in patent cases, and some that merit further consideration and debate. Among the best ideas are the following three:

1. Requiring separate requests for email, rather than permitting email to be included in requests such as “all documents and electronic information” (¶6). This will sharpen the focus on just what types of email communications are relevant. We should consider whether all types of electronic information should be requested separately, and indeed whether to require that specific types of “documents” (correspondence, memoranda, drawings, etc.) should be specifically requested rather than encompassed with omnibus terms.

2. Limiting the metadata parties are required to produce to that revealing times of sending and receipt and the distribution list (¶5). There are times when creation and edit dates are important, so perhaps that also should be included. Most other metadata is typically irrelevant.

3. Presumptive limits of 5 custodians and 5 search terms (¶¶ 10-11). Those limits obviously will not be suitable in all cases, but at least we have a low-number starting point. The suggestions about how to treat conjunctive and disjunctive combinations of terms, and encouragement of the use of narrowing search criteria, are excellent.

via TAMING THE E-DISCOVERY BEAST : IP Legal Watch.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

California Federal Court Grants Motion to Adopt Version of Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases Promulgated by Federal Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law

November 10, 2011 By Leave a Comment

DCG Sys., Inc. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C-11-03792 PSG, 2011 WL 5244356 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

In this patent case, Defendant sought an order adopting a modified version of the Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases (“Model Order”) recently promulgated by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit (available here).  Significantly, the Model Order limits the discovery of email by placing limitations on the allowable number of custodians and search terms.  According to the court, such limitations “are designed to address the imbalance of benefit and burden resulting from email production in most cases.”  The order proposed by the Defendant similarly limited the discovery of email.

Plaintiff opposed the adoption of such an order and urged the court to impose any limits on email discovery pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules.  Plaintiff further argued that this case was unlike “those ‘actions brought by non-practicing entities where there are large imbalances in the cost and volume of discovery’” and instead involved direct competitors which “introduces issues in this case that are not contemplated by the Model Order” including, for example, “the issue of whether Checkpoint copied DCG’s products and whether DCG is entitled to an injunction.”

via California Federal Court Grants Motion to Adopt Version of Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases Promulgated by Federal Circuit : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , ,

Global EDD Group: Your Local E-Discovery Resource, Worldwide

November 8, 2011 By Leave a Comment

It is not uncommon to read posts, tweets and emails within the litigation support industry with a firm, corporation or vendor urgently seeking “local” resources at a distant location, whether it be here in the United States or at points around the globe.  While sometimes it is simply a matter of practicality, more often than not it is a desperate attempt to satisfy a client who refuses to acknowledge the terms “travel” or “remote” as part of a polite conversation.  Why might this be?  Well, historically these terms have often resulted in unexpectedly large invoices due to high hourly fees and premium airfare requirements.

One should also note that there are a number of locations in the world where there simply is not enough local demand to support a legal technology business.  Many legal systems outside of the US and UK do not have discovery and disclosure requirements, thus there a few resources to support such services.  Not only can this be noted for global finance centers such as Shanghai, Zurich and Dubai, but many regions in the United States where there is not a demand for electronic discovery services.  Some scanning and reprographics shops have taken the initiative to invest in the appropriate software, but unfortunately may not have the in-house knowledge and experience to execute the requirements of a project successfully.  This leaves critical decisions for the corporation and firm involved in a case – blindly search for an unknown vendor with unproven skills or leverage a relationship with a specialist that has a range of direct experience and experience?  At what point does cost – or perceived cost – outweigh potential risks such as spoliation?

There are, however, a growing number of options to the historical norms within the industry.   Boutique companies such as Global EDD Group are bridging the gap between organizations and their growing national and international electronic discovery needs by leveraging proven experience, low operational expenses and an extensive network of resources to offer clients legal technology services around the globe at price points typically associated with local vendors.

Global EDD Group

Remote & Mobile Resources

Global Network

Technical Hubs:  Cleveland, Singapore

Resource Centers:  Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur,  London, New York, Paris, San Francisco,  Taipei, Tokyo, Washington DC

Mobile Technology Units

Global EDD Group leverages specialized mobile technology units (“MTUs”) that can deploy worldwide with short notice and provide a full range of self-contained electronic discovery services, including:

◊  Data Mapping
◊  Data Collection
◊  Digital Forensics
◊  Data Minimization
◊  Early Data Assessment
◊  Email Analytics & Conversion
◊  Key Term Analysis
◊  Offline Content Review
◊  TIFF/PDF Conversion

The MTUs provide an extremely portable and cost-effective alternative to the typical industry approach of “copy and ship” data to an offsite facility for downstream processing.  While this approach may be suitable for some projects, it can prove challenging to cases with cross-border privacy concerns, tight deadlines, trade secrets or lack of appropriate resources.  Global EDD Group has designed the MTU services to not only alleviate these challenges of shipping data, but to do so at competive price points often comparable to using a local vendor.

Typical Usage Scenarios:

◊  FCPA Investigation
◊  Due Dilgence Matters
◊  Cross-Border Litigation
◊  Remote Client Facilities (regional, national or international)
◊  Data Protection Act Jurisdictions
◊  Trade Secret Security Concerns

 

Remote Data Collection

Today’s 24/7/365 global economy often does not allow for server downtime to undertake typical forensic collections, nor do many court mandated deadlines allow enough time to collect data at geographically dispersed locations.

Our data collection teams are able to remotely capture live data – including  RAID disks, physical drives, logical volumes, and physical memory (32 & 64 bit Windows) – in a forensically sound manner via IP network connection.  We can connect to a target device, whether it is a server located downstairs in the corporate data center or a PC in a remote office halfway around the world, as long as there is connectivity within the corporate network.

Target environments supported include:

Windows: 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008, & 7, 32 and 64bit, Physical memory only supported on 32bit and 64bit Windows

Apple OSX: OSX 10.3,10.4,10.5,10.6 Universal Binary, *FK only supports Intel Apple OSX

Linux: most Linux distributions build on Glibc 2.3.5 and higher, Android on ARM, and Embedded Linux

Solaris: Solaris 8, 9, & 10 on SPARC and OpenSolaris on Intel

IBM AIX: AIX 5.1,5.2,5.3,6.1 on the Power processor

HPUX: HP_UX11iv2,11iv3 on the Itanium processor

FreeBSD: AIX 7 on the Intel/i386 processor

SCO: SCO OpenServer 6 and Unixware 7 on the Intel/i386 processor

Law Firms and Corporations interested in learning more about Global EDD Group should call +1.888.690.DATA (3282) or email info@globaledd.com for additional information. Global EDD Group also provides these services under subcontract to other industry vendors and service providers.
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »