Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-31
- RT @LegalTechShow: With LegalTech one week away, remember the hash tag is #LTNY, to follow along. #
- @tfoxlaw thank you for the RT in reply to tfoxlaw #
- RT @BillGates: My foundation letter is live http://bit.ly/4Aha8A – innovation in health, food, education and energy essential… #fb #
- RT @chrisdaleoxford: Outsourcing reaches the business press – so the clients will read all about it http://wp.me/p2KJ5-Gg #
- RT @edrm: A draft of the EDRM Jobs Guide covering the 6 stages of talent acquisition is posted at http://bit.ly/cY3huq #
- RT @eMagSol: Court Rejects Total Dismissal of Claims Orders Partial & $75K Sanctions for Egregious Discovery Violations http://bit.ly/92el3D #
- RT @BillGates: Decade of Vaccines- a $10B, 10yr pledge for vaccine research, development & delivery http://bit.ly/cAAXEM #
- RT @edrm: Measuring up! The EDRM Metrics first case study unveiling on Feb. 1 . Get a sneak peak at http://edrm.net/archives/3431 #
- RT @nytimes: NYT NEWS ALERT: 9/11 Trial to Be Moved From New York #
Powered by Twitter Tools
Global EDD Group | Providing Data Knowledge
We have frequently been asked to summarize the focus and differentiators of our boutique legal technology consulting company. First and foremost, we consider ourselves one of the most flexible and efficient providers of international services in the industry. Not only are we capable of providing arbitration, M&A and litigation support services at virtually any location in the world (power and internet connectivity tend to be important), but we are experienced and comfortable at working “outside of the box” at remote or near site locations.
Secondly, we pride ourselves on providing data knowledge to our clients. As an independent company, we are able to leverage “best of breed” tools, services and partners to provide innovative solutions for our clients seeking to manage and understand the immense volume of data associated with their legal, financial or investigation matters.
We have a mobile suite of collection and data analysis tools that allow us to quickly and cost-effectively collect and analyze data from any location along with an established network of partners that allow us to provide a range of discovery services from data collection and processing to document review and hosting, both nationally and internationally. Onsite, nearsite, at your offices or from ours.
Data Knowledge | Know Your Data!
Global EDD Group | Edata Knowledge
eZOOM – a focus on Microsoft Outlook PST files
Email has become the focal point of most electronic discovery and disclosure projects as it has become the primary method of communication in the business world. Additionally, it has been estimated that Microsoft’s Exchange Server has 70% of the commercial email market.
The OST and PST files created by Exchange Server – and the Microsoft Outlook desktop software typically used to access them – can present challenges with the analysis of email data. One PST file will often contain thousands of emails and attachments along with vital metadata such as sender, recipient, date/time sent and subject. Typically, industry practice has been to process PST files through an e-discovery processing tool and load the resulting files and metadata data on to a hosted review platform for analysis. This process can be cumbersome not only in cost, but in time as well.
- PST indexing, analysis & reporting
- PST content analysis
- Email traffic reporting
- Sender/recipient analysis
- PST to file (MHT, MSG, EML), spreadsheet and database (Access, SQL Server, mySQL) conversion
- PST email filtering
- Custodian network analysis, reporting and visualization
- Email categorization and grouping
- Full text, metadata and attachment extraction
- Onsite review and tagging
Further information on eZOOM℠ Data Analytics is available at
LegalTech is in NYC next week: here is why you should go if you can – The Posse List
LegalTech New York opens this coming Monday (February 1st) at The Hilton New York (1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 1-212-586-7000).
The show is presented by ALM Events, a producer of educational and networking events. And most of us know ALM through its various media outlets/brands: The American Lawyer, Corporate Counsel, Law.com, Law Journal Press, The National Law Journal, etc.
It is the world’s largest legal technology conference and trade show. Last year the show attracted nearly 13,000 attendees and featured almost 300 exhibiting companies. The 2010 conference will offer more than 60 educational sessions for attendees on topics ranging from electronic discovery and knowledge management to emerging technologies.
Each day, the sessions are parsed into multiple tracks including: Risk Management, General Counsel, Web 3.0, Intelligence, Knowledge Management, International E-Discovery, ILTA Advanced IT, Comprehensive Recordkeeping, and Emerging Technology.
We have covered both LegalTech shows (New York and LA) because our membership base has expanded beyond our core of contract attorneys/temporary attorneys and contract forensics consultants to include paralegals, in-house counsel, law firm attorneys, solo practitioners, e-discovery vendors, legal media, and others.
If you are contract attorney/temporary attorney or a contract forensics consultant or paralegal, or involved in some aspect of e-discovery work, and you’ll be in NYC next week, you should go. No, not necessarily pay the $695 single-day attendance fee if you cannot afford it. Because a lot of LegalTech events are open to everybody.
via LegalTech is in NYC next week: here is why you should go if you can – The Posse List.
Global EDD Group at LegalTech New York
Brad Mixner and Joe Turner will be networking, attending meetings and exploring the exhibit floor at LegalTech New York 2010 being held at the New York Hilton from 01 – 03 February. Please contact us to schedule a meeting.
We look forward to seeing you there!
District Court Rejects Total Dismissal of Claims, Orders Partial Dismissal and $75,000 in Monetary Sanctions for Egregious Discovery Violations : Electronic Discovery Law
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 5218035 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2009); Bray & Gillespie Mgmt., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2010 WL 55595 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2010)
Following her finding that “[Bray & Gillespie], through counsel, acted willfully and in bad faith in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s orders” by failing to make reasonable efforts to search for and produce documents in response to court orders and by making repeated misrepresentations to the court, among other things, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s claims be stricken and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. (For additional details of plaintiff’s discovery abuses, click here to be taken to a summary of a prior opinion in this case.) On review of that recommendation, the District Court Judge found total dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims “an excessive remedy” and instead ordered the dismissal of all claims for damages arising from the alleged interruption of business at the Treasure Island Property and for the plaintiff to pay $75,000 to the defendant for expenses incurred in pursuit of its motion for sanctions.
In its opinion, the District Court acknowledged the egregious nature of plaintiff’s and plaintiff’s counsel’s many discovery failings. Despite these many violations, however, the court found the sanction of total dismissal of all claims “excessive” and chose instead to dismiss only the claims related to the Treasure Island Property, the property for which the late discovered evidence was relevant. Declining to adopt the Magistrate’s recommendation, the District Court found the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s failure to produce the Treasure Island evidence prevented the defendant from interviewing persons who could describe the condition of the Resort “unpersuasive” where the defendant admitted that certain relevant individuals had been “available to Defendant since the inception of litigation” and had not been interviewed. Also, the defendant’s appraisers had access to the relevant property throughout the relevant time period and took photos of the property to support the defendant’s case. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s conduct “has only related to the production of folios for the Treasure Island Property” and that “[t]o speculate without any evidentiary support that Plaintiff’s conduct in this area undermines the integrity of all discovery provided in the case is not appropriate.”
Court Finds Data “Not Reasonably Accessible,” Denies Motion to Compel : Electronic Discovery Law
Rodriguez-Torres v. Gov. Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 2010 WL 174156 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2010)
In this employment discrimination case, the court found the electronically stored information (“ESI”) requested by the plaintiffs “not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden and cost” and that plaintiffs had failed to show good cause to compel production of the ESI and denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendants’ production of “all email communications and calendar entries describing, relating or referring to plaintiff Vicky Rodriquez, both inbound and outbound from defendant GDB’s messaging system servers” for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Moreover, plaintiffs sought to compel such production “in native format with its original metadata…” Defendants objected and indicated that plaintiffs’ request was likely to produce “hundreds if not thousands of documents which will include irrelevant, confidential, and potentially privileged information.”
Prior to ruling, the court ordered additional briefing on the issue. The parties' submissions included a report from a consulting service indicating an approximate cost of $35,000 to retrieve the requested ESI. Defendants also indicated the need to perform a privilege and confidentiality review of the ESI prior to production. Accordingly, the court found the requested ESI “not reasonably accessible” reasoning that the proposed cost was “too high of a cost for the production of the requested ESI in this type of action.” Moreover, the court indicated its concern over the increased cost that would result from the need to review the documents prior to production stating, “the volume of such information along with the form in which the information is stored makes privilege determinations more difficult and, correspondingly, more expensive and time consuming.”
via Court Finds Data “Not Reasonably Accessible,” Denies Motion to Compel : Electronic Discovery Law.
LegalTech Descends on New York
Lawyers provide legal information to clients and courts of law. The key word is information. With it, we can retain clients, render services, and manage the business of law. And with developments in information technology, we can continually improve our receipt, analysis, and delivery of legal information and account for its costs and remuneration.
With information technology, we can provide better legal services with research tools from the likes of LexisNexis and Westlaw Next and software from e-discovery vendors like Guidance Software, Kroll Ontrack, and StoredIQ that help manage and archive information, as well as cull, produce, and review data for evidence. Transactional lawyers can benefit from document assembly tools and litigators can improve their chances for success with trial technology and internet research. We can also better manage our business with time-and-billing programs, as well as case and matter management applications installed on premise or in the cloud from the likes of Clio and Rocket Matter.
What are the next big improvements in information technology that will benefit lawyers and law firms? Find out at LegalTech New York.
LegalTech brings lawyers, paralegals, law firm administrators, developers, manufacturers, and technologists, and more to the Hilton New York from Feb. 1-3 to share developments and improvements in legal technology, including e-discovery. In 2009, LegalTech New York attracted nearly 13,000 attendees and featured almost 300 exhibiting companies. This year's attendance will be comparable to 2009, says Henry Payne Dicker, vice president of ALM Events, and is ahead in some categories, like paid registrations.
FTC To Silicon Valley: Tech Companies Should Protect Consumer Data – Forbes.com
Washington wants to know: Why can’t technology protect consumers’ privacy instead of violating it?
The Federal Trade Commission met today in Berkeley, Calif., with corporate technology leaders and privacy advocates, challenging them to create ways to protect consumer privacy online. The FTC is encouraging technology companies such as Facebook and Apple (to come up with self-regulatory tactics that will protect consumers without squashing corporate innovation.
Technology companies should be doing more to protect people, says Pamela Jones Harbour, the FTC’s commissioner. “Apple requires all developers to submit potential apps for review,” Harbour says. “Through that process, the company could do more to regulate privacy disclosures.” Similarly, she says other companies should be taking more steps to protect consumer privacy.
The brainstorming session was the second of three the FTC has held before planning to draft new laws this summer that will control how consumer information is collected and used on the Web. Scrutiny of consumer privacy violation on the Internet has grown over the past several years, as technology advancements arm marketers with new ways to target potential buyers. Companies are buying consumer data from sources such as consumer surveys, loyalty programs and Web and mobile applications to identify potential consumers who are then tracked online and off to deliver more relevant advertising.
via FTC To Silicon Valley: Tech Companies Should Protect Consumer Data – Forbes.com.
Translation
by