Friday, November 22, 2013

National Law Institute and Empire Discovery CLE Recap

Article by Robert Ryan

On November 20th, the National Law Institute hosted a CLE Event at the Roger Smith Hotel in New York City.  The topic was “e-Discovery: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You.”  The standing room only event exceeded expectations with well over 100 people in attendance.  The panel discussed the six steps of the EDRM model and the different technologies available for each phase, e-Discovery and social media, and eDiscovery case law.

Special thanks to the moderator, Lori Marks-Esterman (Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP) and the panel of e-Discovery experts: Christopher Redlich (Allen & Overy LLP), Frank Canterino (Empire Discovery), Manuel Almonte (Greenberg Traurig LLP) and Lori Moloney (Chadbourne & Parke LLP). As a result of overwhelming demand, the National Law Institute and Empire Discovery are planning another CLE event in early 2014. Details will follow as the event approaches. 

Below is a link to the website where you can get more information on the event

Friday, September 20, 2013

Perspective on the 2013 Masters Conference in DC

Article by Ann Snyder

On September 19th, the 2013 Masters Conference for Legal Professionals was held in Washington, DC.  According to the conference’s website, the program “brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.”  Both kudos and thanks are warranted for Robert Childress, President & CEO, and Lisa Lehman, Conference Director, for creating a forum at which individuals from across the legal tech industry can fruitfully exchange ideas for effectively addressing the recurrent and emerging issues they face. 

Frank Canterino, Empire Discovery’s CTO and Co-Founder, participated in the panel, “E-Discovery Introduction: Best Practices & Key Cases.”  Click here for the panel abstract.  The speakers offered an introductory-level discussion of the basic issues which should be considered by those new to e-discovery and those interested in improving their approach.  Topics included the importance of establishing clear and open channels of communication and defining areas of responsibility within e-discovery teams, ensuring that established procedures are followed, and providing training for those new to the team and field.  Mr. Canterino’s remarks focused on the importance of proactively addressing e-discovery issues rather than facing down the road the problems and expenses of not doing so.  Canterino was joined on the panel by John Kapp (Shearman & Sterling LLP),  Kara Buzga (Mayer Brown LLP), Barb Hanahan (Lockheed Martin), and  Ignatius Grande (Hughes, Hubbard, & Reed, LLP).  Bruce Malter (D4, LLC) moderated.

The Masters Conference included programing appropriate for a range of experience levels, offering basic, intermediate, and advanced tracks.  The topics covered ranged from e-discovery project management and building a litigation support department to issues raised by international e-discovery and discovery in the cloud to more advanced topics like addressing security breaches and utilizing predictive coding.  One intermediate session, “Update from the Bench,” offered a judicial perspective of best-practices in e-discovery.
The Masters Conference will continue in 2014, offering programs in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, London, and Washington, DC.

Monday, August 26, 2013

"Litigation and Technology - Best Friends" - Free Webinar - Global Outsourcing Association of Lawyers - August 29th

A free webinar hosted by GOAL - Thursday, August 29th - 12:00 EST -
Panelists - Joe Bartolo, J.D., C.C.A - JuriSolutions - Director of Strategic Partnerships
Alan Winchester, Esq. - Technology Expert - Harris Beach
Daniel Moriarty, Esq. - VP and Counsel - Kindred Healthcare

Log-In Credential provided via the link above.

ILTA13 Recap - Joe Bartolo, J.D. - A Recap by JuriSolutions

The link above will provide access to a recap of the educational events that were attended by Joe Bartolo, J.D., C.C.A, Director of Strategic Partnerships for JuriSolutions, and James LaRosa, Esq., C.O.O. of JuriSolutions both attended during the recently completed ILTA13 conference.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Court Rules that Stored Communications Act Applies to Former Employee Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

An article by Doug Austin appearing on the eDiscovery Daily Blog.  The article discusses the case of Lazette v. Kulmatycki, No. 3:12CV2416, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2013).  The article states, ",,,the Stored Communications Act (SCA) applied when a supervisor reviewed his former employee’s Gmails through her company-issued smartphone; it covered emails the former employee had not yet opened but not emails she had read but not yet deleted."

The Gmail account in question was the employees personal email account, which she had enabled her company issued blackberry to access.  The article interestingly states, "The court also found that the former employer could be held liable through respondeat superior: the actions of the supervisor could be imputed to the company."  The emails the employee had opened already were not protected by SCA, since the court held they were not being kept for the purpose of storage.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Daily Litigation Support and Technology News is Available - July 8th

Click the link above to view the Daily Newsletter.  Various stories about eDiscovery and other legal technology related matters.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Friday, May 24, 2013

eDiscovery – United States International Trade Commission Adopts Final Rules

A post appearing on the website outlining new rules for eDiscovery that are to go into effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.  A Federal Register Notice describing the rules was  published on May 15th, and a link to that notice is provided in the posting on the U.S. International Trade Commission website.  The post in the link above states, in part, "The Commission’s new e-discovery rules help ensure that parties more tightly focus their e-discovery requests and responses, which is intended to:
  • cut costs for parties in section 337 investigations;
  • lessen discovery-related burdens for parties;
  • reduce the number of discovery-related disputes;
  • result in fewer discovery motions before the Administrative Law Judges; and
  • enhance the timely resolution of section 337 investigations."

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

E-discovery: Turning the discovery rules upside down

An article by William F. Hamilton appearing on the website.

The article provides discussion around 5 topics, which are said to be unofficial rules to the future of best practices for discovery:
  1. ESI is the solution, not the problem. 
  2. ESI is compelling evidence. 
  3. Seek the important information. 
  4. Start every case with an e-discovery budget. 
  5. Sample everything. 

Friday, May 17, 2013

Tips to Avoid Social Media and New Technology Blunders – Electronic Discovery

An article by Peter Coons appearing on the website.

The article provides pointers on how to avoid mistakes while using social media networks.  The article states, " 
1. Don’t pull a Kirby! (Blog Note from Litigation Support Technology and News: The article describes a story about an individual named Kirby, which will put this point into context) – Don’t assume that only those intended to hear the message heard it.
2. What you do or say on social media sites will be used against you! – Self explanatory.
3. Lock it down! – Ensure that only you or those you trust can see your social media musings.
4. Preserve or deactivate, don’t delete! – Each site is different so make sure you are preserving evidence properly.
5. Reach out for help! – eDiscovery and Forensic experts do this for a living. If you are not sure how to properly preserve, collect, review, or produce ESI then make a call or send an email. This goes for judges, litigants, attorneys, etc."

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

6 Things In-House Counsel Must Know About E-Discovery

An article by Catherine Dunn appearing on the website on the corporate counsel webpage.

The article provides tips from Gabriela Baron, former General Counsel to eDiscover provider Amici, LLC, and discusses the following topics:


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Budgeting for Enterprise Search - Time for the Guessing to End

An article by Martin White appearing on the website.

This article discusses the challenges involved in budgeting for I.T. expenditures.  The article states, "Every enterprise system purchase or upgrade has to be justified in some way, even if (in the case of SharePoint in particular) the business case should be filed under F for Fiction. A significant proportion of the total IT capital spend will be on keeping existing applications alive. Most of these will be compliance-support applications, such as finance, personnel, treasury and asset management as without these the chances are that the accounts will not get audit approval. IT managers will have a pretty good idea of how much these applications cost because they have been involved in managing them for much of their career."

The article goes on to state, "There is then a set of more specialized applications which are not directly related to compliance requirements but which can make an impact on operational performance. Among these would be enterprise resource planning (ERP), product life cycle management (PLM) and customer relationship management (CRM) applications. These applications have been around for some time now and there is quite a substantial amount of published information available on the costs of purchasing and implementing ERP, PLM and CRM software. Organizations that subscribe to analyst services from Gartner, IDC and Forrester (as three examples) will also be able to obtain guidance from them on typical budgets." Links to ERP, PLM and CRM information is provided in the article.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

HP and Autonomy: How to lose $8.8 Billion

Article by Robert Armstrong and Stuart Kirk

Hewlett-Packard appears to be in a difficult position whatever the court rules on its disastrous purchase of the software group. Losing $8.8 Billion is not easy to do but HP has managed to do just that. Since acquiring Autonomy in 2011 for $11.6 Billion they had to write off 80% of the purchase price a year later. HP’s boss at the time of the deal, departed almost immediately afterwards and Raymond Lane, the board’s chairman at the time, and two other directors followed him last month.

HP, however, attributed more than $5 Billion of the writedown to “accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations”.  It alleges that low-margin hardware sales were disguised as high-margin software sales and that products were sold into the distribution channel when there was no buyer.

HP shareholders filed a lawsuit, expected to be strenuously contested, against the company’s board and its advisers – Barclays Capital and Perella Weinberg – in a US District Court last week. It alleges that HP ignored warnings of accounting improprieties and weak growth at Autonomy, then ran an abbreviated due-diligence process, and is claiming to have discovered the improprieties only after the fact to cover for its grotesque overpayment.

So the core question is whether Autonomy’s growth was, in quantity or quality, not what it seemed to be, and whether HP had any reasons to suspect as much. During Autonomy’s latter years as an independent company, a small group of analysts – notably Paul Morland of Peel Hunt and Daud Khan of JPMorgan Cazenove – argued that growth looked overstated. Autonomy responded in detail. That debate takes on new resonance now.

DevOps: Gaining Speed and Reducing Risk in a New World of Disruptive Technology

An article by Lonne Jaffe, posted on the CA Technologies Community Blog.  The article discusses problematic issues related to the implementation of new business software.  The article states, " A recent study found half of business leaders want strategic technology services or software products to be developed and delivered within six months. But talk to the technology leaders surveyed in the same study and only one-third of them said the work could possibly be done in that time frame.

Some attribute these challenges to immature development processes that get in the way of communication and collaboration, hindering progress at a time when heightened competitive pressures, the rise of the digital native and so many disruptive technologies—mobility, consumerization, cloud, Big Data—are demanding more from technology.

Enter DevOps, which focuses on the crucial, often broken communication and collaboration between software developers and technology operations. The concept of DevOps has been around for years, although adoption of some of the more advanced principles is still in its infancy. A recent poll of technology leaders we conducted found that nearly half still don’t even know what DevOps is."

P.S. A link to the referenced survey and poll are both provided in the article.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Volume of Data, Costs and TAR Acceptance Lead Choices as Greatest eDiscovery Challenges

An article by Chuck Pindell, posted on the Daegis Blog, discussing the results of a recent survey undertaken by Daegis.

The article points out, "Unsurprisingly, the explosion of data volume was cited as a current or future concern by a majority of those polled. Twenty-seven percent indicated that it is becoming unmanageable and 20 percent noted it was on the radar for future challenges. While there is a high awareness level for problems associated with big data and eDiscovery, only 6 percent cited it as a major challenge. The coming year will see that number tick upward to a much higher percentage as more legal organizations face this concern."

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Good Practice Guide to eDiscovery in Ireland

A post by Chris Dale posted on his blog the e-Disclosure Information Project.

This blog post provides information, with a link to the recently released Good Practice Guide to Electronic Discovery in Ireland.  The post states, "This is an interesting jurisdiction with all to play for. Mr Justice Frank Clarke, with whom I have the occasional pleasure of doing panels and interviews, does not understate it in the opening line of his forward which reads “It can, I think, be said that Ireland has been late in addressing eDiscovery.”"

P.S. On another note....the owners of the Litigation Support Technology and News Blog wish all our American readers a very happy Law Day.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Court Agrees with Defendant that Preserving 5 Terabytes of Data is Enough

An article by Doug Austin, appearing on the eDiscovery Daily Blog.

This article discusses the case of United States ex rel. King v. Solvay, S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30752 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2013), in which the court failed to fully grant the plaintiff's request for expanded discovery, and ordered a limited expansion of discovery.

The article states, "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), courts can limit discovery to protect parties from undue burden or expense. Judge Miller agreed with the defendant that a few references that conduct was continuing “‘to the present’ in a 267-page complaint containing more than 768 paragraphs does not justify the burden and expense associated with unfettered discovery ‘to the present’ in a case in which discovery is already going to be incredibly expensive and time-consuming.” Although Judge Miller was willing to extend the relevant time frame to include some claims outside of the relators’ personal knowledge because the real party in interest was the United States, he was not willing to go so far as to permit the “generalized claims of ongoing conduct to form the basis for a fishing expedition.” As a result, he granted the motion for a protective order, limiting the time frames for Solvay’s discovery obligations."

In terms of proportionality, the defendant stated, "Moreover, the company argued that it would cost at least $480,000 to process the eMails it was already preserving, and the review of those eMails would cost $2.3 million, excluding quality control, privilege review, and production costs."

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Court Forces Defendant to Come to Terms with Plaintiff Search Request – eDiscovery Case Law

An article by Doug Austin appearing on the eDiscovery Daily Blog. The article looks at the case Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 12-11503, (D. ED Mich. Mar. 14, 2013), in which the court ordered the defendant to utilize the search terms requested by the plaintiff but failed to impose sanctions.  The dispute centered on 2 additional search terms the plaintiff's requested but the defendant's rejected, arguing that they were not likely to produce additional relevant materials.

The article states, "It’s interesting that the defendant didn’t provide document retrieval counts and try to argue on the basis of proportionality. Perhaps providing the counts would reveal too much strategy? Regardless, it seems that the wildcard search for “test” could be argued as potentially overbroad – there are 60 words in the English language that begin with “test”. It looks like somebody is getting “wild” with wildcards!"

Thursday, April 18, 2013

[Free E-Book Download] Social Media for Litigators and Lit Support

Click the link above to obtain a free download of an e-Book from A2L Consulting entitled "Social Media for Litigators and Lit Support."  The link above leads to a post from Ken Lopez, C.E.O. of A2L, and provides another link to allow a free download of the aforementioned e-Book.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Borg Challenge: Part Five where I summarize my findings by Ralph Losey, Esq.

A video and accompanying notes by Ralph Losey, Esq. appearing on the eDiscovery Team® blog. This is part 5 in 5 part series that discusses a predictive coding project that was undertaken by the author, and compares 2 workflow methods that relied on the same technology.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Borg Challenge: Part Four where I complete the experiment by Ralph Losey, Esq.

Borg Challenge: Part Four where I complete the experiment, a video series by Ralph Losey, Esq. of the eDiscovery Team®, providing information regarding a predictive coding experiment he has been undertaking.  This video is part 4 in a 5 part series and links to parts 1 through 3 are also provided via the link to part 4 of the series above.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Cyberattacks a Mounting Challenge for Employers

An article posted on the National Law Review website, co-authored by Paul S. Cowie and Dorna Moini, discussing the increasing threat of cyberattacks on corporate information systems.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Best and Worst Law Schools for Jobs

The National Law Journal has published a list of the best law schools to go to if you want to work in Biglaw after graduation. Here is the list:

The NLJ has a list of the 10 law schools with the highest percentage of 2012 graduates who were seeing employment, but hadn't been lucky enough to find a job within nine months of graduation. Here is the list:

eDiscovery - The Use of TAR and Predictive Coding in eDiscovery and Information Governance - Joint Session - NYCPA - ARMA - PALS and WIE - New York Chapters -

eDiscovery Joint Session
 the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, NYC Chapter (
ARMA), Paralegals and Litigation Support Working Group (PALS) and Women in eDiscovery (WIE) on
The Use of TAR and Predictive Coding in eDiscovery and Information Governance
This session will delve into the similarities, differences and symbiotic relationships between the technologies that drive today's core law firm functions.

A moderated panel of experts will weigh in on the salient issues surrounding the recent emergence of predictive coding as a tool to harness information beyond its value in litigation, and will look at the implications of its use in technology aided review for eDiscovery.
Don't Miss this Panel Discussion, Dinner and Networking Event!
6:00 - 9:00 PM
Studio 9C, NBCUniversal
30 Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10112

Business Attire

Dinner and drinks are included along with open beer and wine bar.

To Register, click HERE

Speaker bios:ModeratorRudy Moliere - Rudy is the Director of Records & Information at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. With more than 20 years of experience, He assisted firms develop leading practices and policies on records management.

Before joining Morgan Lewis, Rudy was the Director of Information Governance & Records Management at White & Case, LLP. Prior to that Rudy was the Records Manager and Compliance Officer at Paul Weiss, where he helped develop and oversee the Firm's records retention policy and records management guidelines. While at Paul Weiss, he implemented innovative technology to manage the retention and disposition of Firm and client records.


Alan Winchester, Esq. - Alan is a member of the firm and leader of the e-info sm Electronic Information Counseling and Management Team, which provides comprehensive document management services for both transactional and litigation scenarios. He also practices within the Medical & Life Sciences Industry Team and in the Mass Torts & Industry-Wide Litigation Practice Group.
As electronic discovery counsel, Mr. Winchester is experienced in all phases of information management relating to the development of document management strategies and policies, compliance with regulatory agencies, e-discovery, including the preservation, collection and production of documents, development of search criteria, review of documents for responsiveness and privilege, sampling of electronic documents for pre-litigation assessments, as well as the development of retention and disaster plans.

Joseph C. Bartolo, J.D. - Joe was the Director of Legal Projects for Robert Half Legal in 2012. Joe is a former litigator in New York, having worked on complex mass tort cases, and having successfully argued appeals before the New York State Appellate Division. Joe is a subject matter expert in eDiscovery, and is a former working group leader in the EDRM organization. He is a certified Clearwell Administrator, and a Certified iCONNECT Administrator. Joe was formerly the National Technology Advisor for IKON. He has instructed CLE courses on eDiscovery topics for over 100 law firms, and corporate law departments, throughout the U.S.

Joe is a published author, and an avid blogger, and is a co-founder of the Litigation Support Technology and News blog.

Hon. Ronald J. Hedges (retired) - Ron is the principal of Ronald J. Hedges LLC and is of counsel to Corodemus & Corodemus. He has extensive experience in e-discovery and in the management of complex litigation and has served as a special master, arbitrator and mediator. He also consults on management and discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

Mr. Hedges was a United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey from 1986 to 2007. While a magistrate judge, he was the Compliance Judge for the Court Mediation Program, a member of the Lawyers Advisory Committee, and both a member of, and reporter for, the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Committee. From 2001 to 2005 he was a member of the Advisory Group of Magistrate Judges.

Salvatore Mancuso - Sal Mancuse has 25 years of experience in providing Litigation and Practice Support, stemming from both the law and the service provider side of the industry. He is currently the Director of Practice Support for Proskauer Rose, LLP.

Mariana Fradman, MBA
NYCPA President, Mentor Program & CLE Chairperson
Member of the Advisory Board of the Institute of Paralegal Studies, SCPS, New York University
Members of the Advisory Board of the Paralegal Program, New York Career Institute
Phone: 347-586-9272

Monday, April 8, 2013

Predictive Equality and Coding Before Discovery. A Fresh Look at ReTasking TAR Technology for Upstream Information Governance.

A Panel Discussion with Information Governance Expert Rudy Moliere and eDiscovery Subjet Matter Experts Hon. Ronald Hedges (Retired); Alan Winchester, Esq.; Sal Mancuso; and Joe Bartolo, J.D.


TOPIC: Predictive Equality and Coding Before Discovery. A Fresh Look at ReTasking TAR Technology for Upstream Information Governance.
This panel discussion will delve into the similarities, differences and symbiotic relationships between the technologies that drive today's core law firm and corporate legal department functions. Our panel of experts will weigh in on the salient issues surrounding the recent emergence of predictive coding as a tool to harness information beyond its value in litigation, and will look at the implications of its use in technology aided review for eDiscovery.This is a joint dinner meeting, in conjunction with New York City Paralegal Association andPALS. 
Location: NBC Studio 9C, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, NY, NY
Time: 6:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M.
Due to Security Restrictions, please register online for this event and you must arrive no later than 6:30 for this event. Directions will be sent to all registrants on Wednesday, April 10th.
This event is sponsored by:

A Commentary on Proportionality in eDiscovery - Post-Public Comment Version Released by The Sedona Conference

Download the Post-Public Comment Version of the Sedona Conference - A Commentary on Proportionality in eDiscovery - Click the link above to register for a free download.  The Sedona Commentary was released in January, 2013, and the new release includes feedback from the public.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Predictions on predictive coding

An article by Robert L. Byman, appearing on the website via the National Law Journal.

The article discusses predictive coding, and discusses the impact that it is having upon the legal profession.  The article also discusses the need for greater participation among opposing counsel in regards to the discovery process.  The article states, "But here's my prediction: Predictive coding is a cool new tool, but it will not solve the basic problem. Discovery will remain expensive, parties will remain combative, and courts will remain perplexed as they try to sort things out. As Pogo so aptly put it, "We have met the enemy and he is us." We lawyers are the problem. New tools are nice, but new attitudes would be better.

The problem is that lawyers too often view cooperation and compromise as antithetical to zealous advocacy; we distrust and oppose whatever our opponent proposes. If you want to use predictive coding, I don't. If I want to use 20 search terms, you want 50 different ones. If you want to search 20 custodians, I demand 200. And when, invariably, the receiving party claims production is incomplete, we race one another to court."

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

There Can Be No Justice Without Truth, And No Truth Without Search

An article by Ralph Losey, Esq. posted on the eDiscovery Team®

The article discusses the importance of search, and the need for use of technology.  The article points out that computer technology has created a mess for attorneys but can also help solve that mess.  "Predictive coding type machine learning, when used properly, empowers lawyers to save our legal system from information noise. For the past decade the nearly insoluble needle in the haystack problem of evidence retrieval has gotten worse every year. We have not been able to find the evidence needed to do justice in an effective and affordable manner because of the problem of Too Much Information. But now the tide is turning.

This problem was brought on by the unprecedented, rapid advances in computer technology. Computers got our system of justice into this mess, and now, finally, computers can help us get out."

Monday, April 1, 2013

eDiscovery Panel Discussion, Dinner and Networking Event - New York City - April 11th, 2013

Click the link below for more information:

Joe Bartolo, co-founder of this blog, is pleased to be a panelist in this upcoming event, scheduled at NBC Studios in New York City, on April 11th.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

When Data Visualization Works — And When It Doesn't

An article by Jim Stikeleather posted on the Harvard Business Review.  This article looks at the effective use of "Visualization" models to analyze "Big Data" sets.  The article points out vital factors that need to be considered when creating visualization diagrams to view patterns within data sets.

The article explores three main reasons to use visualization techniques, which the author defines as: Confirmation; Education and Exploration.  The author then discusses factors to consider in order to effectively use visualization, such as: Data Quality; Context: and Biases.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

How Relying on Algorithms and Bots Can Be Really, Really Dangerous

An article by Clive Thompson posted on discussing possible dangers of relying on artificial intelligence technology to make decisions.  The article provides everyday examples of risks associated with allowing computer technology to make decisions for people.

Darpa sets out to make computers that teach themselves

An article by Robert Beckhusen posted on the website.  The article examines an effort by the U.S. government via the Pentagon's Blue-Sky Research Agency, to create computers that utilize enhanced artificial intelligence technology.