Monday, June 30, 2008

What every IT manager should know about e-discovery

Electronically stored information (ESI) presents increasingly expensive challenges to organizations faced with legal discovery requests. Initially, courts were willing to accept most claims that costs of finding and producing ESI was too high, too onerous, for the responding party. However, recent decisions in Federal courts, as well as changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reflect a shift toward holding respondents-the providers of information requested during discovery-responsible to pay for producing ESI. This responsibility is based on the assumption that a reasonable IT manager understands the need for knowing where his or her organization’s information is kept, whether it should be accessible during discovery, how to provide an environment in which documents and other information can be easily placed and kept on “legal hold”, and the how to implement and use the tools necessary to provide them on demand. This is the first in a series of articles in which I’ll explore these issues.


In Part 1, I look at the history of discovery and how we arrived at the current state of ESI discovery management. In the Part 2, I’ll walk through various approaches to mitigating ESI discovery risk and the risk to organizations who fail to do anything until served with a litigation-related request. Electronic messaging and content monitoring/filtering solutions are the topics for Parts 3 and 4. Finally, in Part 5, I discuss the most important element of successful discovery management-employees, the creators and users of information.

This is a big topic, so let’s get started.

History of Discovery challenges

Before we dive into the particulars of discovery, we should settle on a definition, one that we’ll apply throughout this series. The following is taken from Law.com:

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com

Saved by SaaS: Data backup via Software-as-a-Service

Ta-ta to tapes -- if you've got the bandwidth

The last thing a collision repair shop needs to worry about is a data-storage crash. So when John Sweigart realized the software he'd been using to manage his business, The Body Shop, was no longer compatible with the way they were backing up data, he knew it was time for a different option.

The Garnet Valley, Pa.-based Body Shop, which has four locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has hundreds of records, including images kept on file for appraisers and insurers for at least a year. "It's tons of information and we've had occasions where the server's crashed and we lost data,'' says Sweigart. "We have paper files, but we still have to go back and recreate the electronic files."

Since they have multiple pieces of software to back up and no internal IT staff, Sweigart decided to outsource that headache. He chose backup SaaS provider Verio. For $29 per location per month, The Body Shop has automatic backup of all its disk drives and servers every night.

Before switching to SaaS backup, each Body Shop location kept tapes on hand that an employee had to back up and take home [!!! -- Ed.] at night. "It turned into such a comprehensive process, and you had to make sure it was done right every night and that someone was actually taking [the tape],'' says Sweigart. "We had an incredible sense of paranoia doing all this extra work, and we needed a better option."

Data backup continues to be a challenge for enterprises and especially SMBs, because it requires a multifaceted infrastructure of backup software, networks, servers, disk arrays and tape systems. Many firms have trouble completing backups in the allotted time, and a significant number fail or complete with errors. Often, companies don't protect machines at remote locations because of the hassle, so there are gaps in backup coverage. Because of issues like these, more and more frequently companies are turning to backup software as a service (SaaS) providers, which handle support and maintenance of a variety of applications over the Internet without companies having to invest in any servers or install any software onsite.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------
Source: Computerworld
By: Esther Shein

Done in by cell phone

Minneapolis police are using a high-tech device that mines data from phones to help solve some high-profile crimes.

A 37-second cell-phone video made news this year when it led to the conviction of former University of Minnesota football player Dominic Jones for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.

But the discovery of the deleted cell-phone video by Minneapolis police was by no means an isolated incident. Armed with search warrants, Minneapolis police are increasingly scanning cell phones for evidence -- they have handled 68 such searches this year -- and they have new electronic tools to help with the job.

It's a case of police work catching up with consumer electronics. Consumers may be familiar with a device that cell-phone providers use to copy an address book from an old phone to a new one.
Now police have a "forensic" version of the device that uncovers scientific evidence for court cases by copying a lot more than address books.

The $4,000 device from Israeli firm Cellebrite, called the UFED (universal forensic extraction device), can read and copy a cell phone's video, photos, text messages, call history and personal audio recordings. Minneapolis police upgraded this year from the firm's consumer-grade device to the forensic one.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune
By: Steve Alexander

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Forcing suspect to divulge password a thorny legal issue

With powerful encryption software available for free on the Internet, law enforcement officials fear they more frequently will encounter greater difficulties accessing information from computers that they seize.

Instead of spending months or even years trying to break the encryption, authorities might have a simpler option at their disposal — forcing a suspect to divulge the password. It is a legally thorny issue with scant precedent, according to legal experts.

In Mobile, federal prosecutors said they never have asked a judge for such a court order.

"We've discussed it," said Maria Murphy, the acting criminal division chief at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Mobile.

It is unclear whether a judge would grant such a request. A federal magistrate judge in Vermont denied a similar request in November made by federal prosecutors there on grounds that it violated the suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue.

"It's unsettled. We don't really know," said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. "My own take is it's unconstitutional unless there's some specific circumstances."

It might pass constitutional muster, Kerr said, if prosecutors could prove the user exercised control over the files or granted limited immunity.

'Fascinating question' Other legal analysts, however, said they doubt someone could be compelled to provide a password that could lead police to incriminating information.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: al.com
By: Brendan Kirby

Six months and billions of passwords later, federal investigators in Mobile are still toiling to hack into encrypted files

Federal agents in Mobile investigating an accused child predator sent a computer to cyber consultant Gus Dimitrelos on Jan. 2 with a request that he open encrypted files that they believed contained child pornography.

Dimitrelos, a retired Secret Service agent who assists the U.S. Attorney's Office, easily discovered the secret password to log on to the computer. But the encryption hiding the files has proved exponentially more stubborn.

One hundred and 80 days later — having tried some 9.5 billion passwords — a forensic software program working around the clock on the seized computer has yet to break the code and reveal the files' secrets.


In May, prosecutors convicted the computer's owner, Michael Ryan South, of traveling across state lines to try to have sex with a child. Still, Dimitrelos' computers never rested in their efforts to probe South's machine.

"We're going to decrypt it," Dimitrelos said. "I just have to wait. There's nothing else I can do. ... It could be years. We could be having the same conversation three years from now."

Or significantly longer, according to some computer experts.


Nine and a half billion "is not a lot when you're talking about trillions or quintillions of possible combinations," said Philip Craiger, an engineering technology professor at the University of Central Florida in Tampa.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: al.com
By: Brendan Kirby

Workers' Text Messages Are Private

The boss can't riffle through employees' electronic text messages or e-mails on company accounts without running afoul of federal privacy protections, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The broad holding on June 18 sharply curtailed the ability of public employers to access the content of personal text messages and e-mails sent at work. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co. Inc., No. 07-55282.

It was unclear how far the holding goes to protect private employees' e-mails held on the employers' own server, although company policies that spell out the authority to read those e-mails would eliminate the expectation of privacy, according to the court.

The appeal stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Jeff Quon, an Ontario, Calif., police sergeant, plus two other police department employees and Quon's wife, Jerilyn, against the department and
Arch Wireless Operating Co., which provides pager services to the city. The company was targeted for providing the city with the contents of text messages the plaintiffs had sent on city-owned pagers, including sexually explicit messages.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Pamela A. MacLean

VoIP Telephony: Keeping a Lid on Pandora's Box

Messages are easily stored and difficult to search, creating particular challenges for e-discovery.

The rapidly evolving nature of information technology has been a boon to almost every industry in modern society. The ability to generate, store, access and transfer immense quantities of complex data almost instantaneously has allowed for levels of efficiency and profitability that were impossible merely a decade ago.

The business world has clearly been a beneficiary of this information revolution. The rabid excitement and enthusiasm expressed by corporate IT professionals and CEOs over each new technological advance is matched only by the level of fear and trepidation of in-house and outside counsel who are constantly faced with the burning question, "How will the adoption of this new technology affect our e-discovery obligations?" In the aftermath of landmark e-discovery decisions such as Zubulake v. UBS Warburg1 and Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.,2 the question has taken on an added degree of urgency.

One particular innovation that promises to fundamentally change the way businesses communicate is a technology known as Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP. VoIP represents the holy grail of information technology: an inexpensive voice communications system that can be seamlessly integrated with existing Internet, fax, e-mail and teleconferencing technology. Establishing a clear understanding of the technology and the data it generates is essential in order to update document retention policies and litigation hold procedures and for designing effective implementations.

What Is VoIP?

While an in-depth discussion of the technology that makes VoIP possible is beyond the scope of this article, the basic concepts will be briefly discussed in order to provide an overview of what VoIP is, and how it differs from traditional telecommunications technology. It should also be noted that VoIP is a name for a type of technology, and the manner in which it is implemented and administered within a particular system can vary tremendously from one user to the next.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Michael Cukor and Thomas R. DeSimone

Friday, June 27, 2008

Willis says tapes with client data missing

Willis Group Holdings Ltd. is investigating the loss of computer data backup tapes containing client information that went missing while in transit to a storage facility.

The London-based brokerage sent letters to affected clients on Thursday informing them of the loss and explaining that Willis is working with local law enforcement authorities to recover the tapes.

"We have no reason at this stage to believe that the tapes were specifically targeted, or that any information has been accessed or used improperly," Vic Krauze, chief operating officer of Willis North America, wrote in a client letter obtained by Business Insurance. "This was an isolated event, and we believe the likelihood of any potential criminal misuse of the data, while difficult to predict with absolute certainty, is minimal."

Willis has set up a toll-free help line to assist affected clients.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: businessinsurance.com

Be a River, not a Dam...with Your E-Discovery Data

Remember storage systems back in the 90's, when storage vendors were promising how SAN, NAS and other monolithic storage devices were going to cure the IT world of all their storage and data management ills? Hard drives were just so darn expensive and data was proliferating at an alarming rate. What was an IT administrator to do, keep adding file servers every week? The storage industry sprinted to provide bigger, better, faster solutions all geared towards getting all of our files into one glorious place, where it would be forever hosted by redundant disks, controllers, nics, power supplies, you name it. Every possible point of hardware failure was made redundant, a pledge to forever protect our data from the swath of destruction caused by static, bad users, bad hardware and other catastrophes.

Those of us in IT rolled up our sleeves, planned our server migrations, and inconvenienced our users by pushing their data from user shares and hard drives to the central storage system. The more Draconian IT shops implemented Windows group policies and other programmatic enforcement to keep users from saving data to unsupported locations. Once the IT migration was complete and all the data was "safe," there was no time to celebrate. As soon as we had moved all the data to one glorious place, we created a new problem for ourselves—some of us had so much data in one place that backup and recovery using our standard tape methods no longer served us. So, off we went to shop for faster tape devices, nearline storage devices, redundant SAN/NAS devices, remote archiving vendors, and more-more-more tools, and expenses, to help us manage our data, which was ironically exploding with greater velocity than prior to our storage leap.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: wwpi.com
By: Belinda Runkle

Review E-Discovery to Reduce Spoliation Risks

Have you ever been lucky enough to experience the feeling that comes over you when you learn that your client did not retain e-mails that are pertinent to litigation, whether it be that the e-mails were simply deleted or that your client's computer crashed three years ago and sent potentially relevant e-mails straight into Dante's eighth circle of hell? Quite an unsettling feeling. Despite counsel's best efforts, preservation of electronic information seems to be a constant sore spot in complex litigation.

In a post-Zubulake and Morgan Stanley world, where the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect well over a year ago, the struggle with how to best manage electronic data discovery continues. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); see Coleman Holdings v. Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 679071 (Fla.Cir.Ct. March 1, 2005).

E-discovery, in simple terms, means the information requested by a litigant which is stored in an electronic format and which the litigant intends to use as evidence in a case. Electronically stored information is more commonly referred to as "ESI." ESI can encompass all forms of information kept in an electronic environment, such as data stored on backup tapes, retained in legacy systems or other data reserved for deletion on hard drives. See Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) §11.446 (2003). A client may retain data in a variety of data formats: as e-mail and spreadsheets (active); cookies and favorites (Internet); and embedded information (metadata).

Spoliation of evidence is "the intentional destruction of evidence ..." See Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Ed. 1990). Notably, intentional misconduct in withholding e-discovery is not required for a court to make a spoliation determination and sanction a party; instead, poor document retention practices, or failure to maintain such practices, may provoke sanctions from the court. See Mosaid Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2004 WL 2550306 (D.N.J.), aff'd, 348 F.Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2004) (holding negligence standard). Sanctions may include monetary fines, an entry of default judgment or even criminal punishment.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Angela Scafuri

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Full E-mail Archiving Strategy Needed in K-12

The Consortium for School Networking(CoSN) today released a new White Paper, titled School Districts, DataRetention and Federal eDiscovery Rules: The Case for a Full E-mail ArchivingSolution Now, which was developed to help education technology leadersunderstand recent changes to federal laws governing e-mail archiving and dataretention, and to increase awareness about the importance of schools acting inaccordance with the rules. The White Paper underscores the need for a completee-mail archiving solution, and provides recommendations to school technologyleaders for achieving compliance and case studies detailing successfulapproaches taken by school districts around the country. In addition, thepaper sheds light on the policy issues, technology challenges, budgetconstraints and legal implications facing schools as they work to ensure thattheir districts are compliant.

"E-mail has transformed the way we all communicate -- educators, schoolsand school districts included. Because much information is sharedelectronically and federal laws and judicial interpretations are includingelectronic communication as subject to legal discovery, it has becomeincreasingly important for schools to make e-mail archiving a critical part oftheir record-keeping activities," said Keith Krueger, CEO of CoSN.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org

Collaboration 'in the Cloud'

For lawyers, collaboration is not a new concept. To get things done, attorneys must work with others -- clients, colleagues and even opposing counsel. What has changed over the past few years, however, is that technology has caught up with collaboration. Today it's even easier to work with other people, whether they happen to be down the hall, around the corner or on the other side of the world. Most of these collaboration technologies have one thing in common: the Internet.

Microsoft Corp.'s Sharepoint, extranets, and even e-mail are well-known collaborative platforms. But there are innovative, new collaboration technologies that can be found "in the cloud" -- Internet-based sites and services that aren't necessarily designed for the legal community, but that lawyers can use to communicate and work with others no matter where in the world they happen to be.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Tom Mighell

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

E-Discovery: When Legal Trouble Hits, the Delete Button Will Not Protect You

Many businesses hardly give a second thought to old e-mails, digital documents, and instant messages. But, if you don't know how long employees are keeping these documents, you may very well have some legal time bombs sitting on your company's network or employee hard drives.

Recent headlines serve as a chilling reminder that the e-discovery process can unearth damaging data that sinks careers and company reputations.

Last week, two Bear Stearns managers were arrested and indicted on securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy charges, amid allegations that they defrauded investors in hedge funds that invested money in subprime mortgages. The funds collapsed when the mortgages they were tied to lost value, leading to the loss of $1.4 billion in for investors.

In a fateful e-mail that federal prosecutors turned up during the e-discovery process, one of the managers recommended that they close the funds due to poor performance of bond securities. The two managers had told investors four days later that they were comfortable with holdings in both funds.

The Bear Stearns debacle shows the value of being ethical in business. It also shows the importance of developing best practices and policies to protect your company in case employees do unethical things.

It used to be that the discovery process, used by attorneys to find relevant information for pre-trial motions and trials, was mostly confined to printed documents. But with advancing technology and new forms of communication, the federal rules of civil procedure were modified in December 2006 to include all electronic and digital documents. Only two years later, it's estimated that 75 percent of discovery orders require companies to produce e-mail, and companies that fail to comply face millions of dollars in sanctions and fines. Under the e-discovery requirements, companies also need to pay attention to how they are managing and purging scanned documents, voicemails, instant messages, text messages, and everything in between.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-----------------------------------------
Source: WWJ Newsradio 950
By: Jenny Cromie

The staff, the thief, the device and its data

With the increasing use of mobile phones, PDAs and laptops as work tools, important company data is removed from the office every day.

Data being leeched from company databases by less secure mobile devices is a common occurrence, making data leakage the big technology issue of 2008. With the increasing use of mobile phones, PDAs and laptops as work tools, important company data is removed from the office every day.

This increase in data sharing promotes an environment suitable for data leakage and is aggravated by the associated use of hot-desking, home working and wireless hotspots. It is further complicated by the shuttling of data back and forth between staff on USB sticks, CDs, DVDs, backup tapes and even iPods. As a consequence, security breaches are on the increase.

Whether it is HM Revenue & Customs losing 25 million records on CDs, the Ministry of Defence losing details of 600,000 servicemen and women in a laptop theft, or the recovery (from beside a bicycle shed) of a USB drive containing the personal details of Perth & Kinross Council workers, cases of data loss appear with uncomfortable regularity.

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) that is currently being implemented, as well as the forth-coming governance regulations in the Companies Act, will force UK businesses to focus on the problem of data leakage.

Public knowledge

Unlike many other parts of the world, in the UK there is no requirement to disclose data breaches. The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) reports that data breaches doubled to 167 in the US during the first quarter of this year, compared with the equivalent a year ago.

That figure is probably similar in the UK, even without the ITRC figures accounting for the encrypted files that may have been compromised. However, there remains no real breakdown of the number of breaches that are directly related to mobile data.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------
Source: misweb.com

Three Steps to a Safe Harbor for ESI

A recent survey of 200 United States commercial businesses conducted by Canvasse Opinion found that almost half of the companies do not have a strategy or policy in place on how to deal with electronically stored information in litigation or in internal investigations. Even after a year-and-a-half of sensational headlines, e-discovery appears to remain an afterthought in many corporate minds.

However, there is little doubt that electronic communication continues to present significant challenges to companies and their leaders. The challenges relate to the proper handling of electronic communications and the consequences of sloppy document management. These challenges make it necessary to establish the best practices for e-mail retention and production. We all recognize how important these challenges are, but many are paralyzed from doing anything about them because they perceive the development of a proper response to be a daunting task.

What makes ESI so challenging is its volatility. By its very nature, ESI easily can be modified, overwritten or deleted by normal, everyday use. Routine acts like recycling backup tapes, opening and closing a file, rebooting a computer, modifying a document or running a daily maintenance program can alter or permanently destroy data. Take those intrinsic qualities, and add the "human factor" and common realities such as the increased volume of data, disorganized or nonexistent record retention practices, numerous storage locations of ESI and routine purging, and you have what amounts to a formula for a disaster waiting to happen.

While reported cases about e-discovery abuses usually involve extremes, they do offer insight into what can go terribly wrong with poor electronic communication protocol. In Qualcomm v. Broadcom, F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 935617 (S.D.Cal.), for example, a California federal court took Qualcomm and its counsel to task for failing to turn over damaging e-mail evidence. Initially, the court ordered Qualcomm to pay Broadcom's $8.5 million legal fees and referred Qualcomm's attorneys to the local ethics board for an investigation into their conduct.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Fernando M. Pinguelo and Rob Kleeger

Facebook in legal fight for its future

CEO'S CLASSMATES WHO SAY HE STOLE THEIR IDEAS WANT SETTLEMENT REVISITED

A long-running legal battle over whether Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg ripped off Harvard classmates in launching his social-networking Web site shifted to a San Jose federal courtroom Monday as high-powered legal teams squared off in a fight that could have huge consequences for the company's future.
At issue is whether ConnectU, founded by some of Zuckerberg's Harvard classmates, can reopen a settlement they reached with Facebook over their claims that he stole their ideas and code to start his company. ConnectU claims it found new evidence relevant to the case.


Facebook wants to enforce the settlement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. In fact, much about the case has been shrouded in secrecy, and that was true at Monday's hearing as Judge James Ware barred the public from the courtroom at Facebook's behest.

The potential stakes are enormous.

"The worst case scenario is that Facebook doesn't own its core code and that it's been using someone else's code for the foundation of its company. That could lead to damages that are catastrophic," said Eric Goldman, assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law and director of SCU's High Tech Law Institute. "In the worst case scenario, this could be a fight for Facebook's life."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------
Source: mercurynews.com

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

How IT Is Transforming Legal Services

Access to information is a dangerous thing -- to the people who have previously benefited from controlling the information. Just ask former travel agents driven out of business by passengers who now have access to the fares, schedules and booking systems they need to book their own travel. Or the car dealers whose customers know, before setting foot into the showroom, exactly how much the dealers paid for a vehicle. Or the real estate agents whose clients run their own comparables and begin to wonder why they need an agent at all.

Every law firm knows that IT helps it to do more, better, faster. While sometimes slow to catch on to some technologies, successful firms have learned how to increase the efficiency of their practices with practice management, case management, client relationships management and other technology tools. A new generation of marketers is effectively using technology to reach new clients and new markets.

Not enough people in the legal industry, however, are thinking about how IT is changing the whole game. What makes them think that legal services will always be delivered in their current packaging, the personal, high-level, consultative, lawyer-client relationship?

A number of change drivers are moving the legal environment toward fundamental transformation. Most of the drivers have to do with bringing the practice of law further in line with the way most other industries operate:

To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: David Curle

Monday, June 23, 2008

Save Your E-Mail and Save Your World

E-mail archiving and storage that ensure compliance with regulatory standards continue to be an ongoing challenge.

Deep in the heart of governmental bureaucracy, something happened that, while barely noticed at the time, continues to control the way you have to think about e-mail some 38 years later. In 1970, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) added to its text the phrase "data compilations from which information can be obtained." That defining moment of legislation meant all digital documents on computers had to be made available for discovery.

Legally speaking, discovery is the process by which the court requests parties involved in a lawsuit to submit information relevant to the case. The company that receives the discovery request must submit all relevant or requested information in a timely manner, with no expectation of reimbursement.

In December 2006, amendments to the FRCP again changed the rules that govern management of electronically stored information for all organizations operating in the United States. This further defined the role of e-mail and other electronic messaging with respect to litigation.

The Growing Scope of ComplianceNo one could have predicted in 1970 how much data computers would eventually store and process. Analysts estimate that as much as 75 percent of corporate documentation is currently created and communicated via e-mail.

Therefore, the cost of retrieving electronic information to defend against a lawsuit can be colossal. And it's not an option -- it's essential. The costs can often outweigh the damages sought in the suit, especially if the organization does not use an adequate compliance solution. The situation gets more serious if the material demanded in the discovery is not available. Other regulations require that certain categories of information, like medical records or patient discussions, be given maximum privacy and protected from access by anyone but authorized persons.

At the same time, a significant amount of any organization's intellectual property lives in its messaging servers. As a corporate asset, you have to save and protect those e-mails; yet doing so is a moving target. Government agencies and corporate policy makers are defining regulations that affect e-mail and the data it contains. Their enforcement of and your adherence to these policies and regulations is the beast known as compliance.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Redmond Magazine
By: David W. Tschanz

United States: A Creative Screening Of Electronically Store Information May Determine The Victor

In Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., et al., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. 2008), the United States District Court for the District of Maryland was forced to decide whether the defendants' inadvertent production of certain categories of electronically stored documents waived the protections of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. After carefully analyzing the events which led to the inadvertent production, the court in Victor held that the defendants had waived any claim to attorney client privilege or work-product doctrine protection with respect to the inadvertently produced documents.

Defendants, Creative Pipe, Inc. ("CPI") and Mark and Stephanie Pappas ("M. Pappas and S. Pappas") (collectively, the "defendants") initially responded to plaintiff's discovery requests with a traditional "paper production." The plaintiff took issue with the sufficiency of the defendants' paper production and the parties ultimately identified a joint protocol for searching and retrieving relevant and responsive electronically stored information ("ESI"). The joint protocol included nearly five pages of keyword/phrase search terms that were intended to help locate responsive ESI, but not designed to identify privileged or work-product protected documents.

After completing their search, defendants expressed concern to the court that an individualized privilege review of the responsive documents would unnecessarily delay production and cause undue expense. As a result, defendants provided their computer expert with a list of keywords that could be used to search for and retrieve privileged documents. Defendants' counsel, recognizing the possibility of inadvertent disclosure, requested that the court approve a "clawback agreement" in the event of such a disclosure. The court's subsequent decision to extend the discovery deadline by four months convinced the defendants that they would be able to undertake a document-by-document privilege review and, they believed, made a clawback agreement unnecessary -- a decision that would ultimately subject them to judicial criticism.

Soon after receiving and reviewing defendants' ESI production, plaintiff's counsel discovered documents that were potentially privileged or work-product protected and notified defense counsel accordingly. Defendants asserted that any production of protected documents was inadvertent, but plaintiff filed a motion seeking a ruling regarding the discoverability of inadvertently produced documents. The court undertook a close examination of the defendants' retrieval and production of ESI, which included the execution of the joint protocol and an electronic search for privileged material on those files that were in a "text-searchable" format.

The electronic privilege search consisted of seventy keywords identified by defendant M. Pappas, one of his former attorneys, and another attorney. Additional, non-text searchable files were turned over to defendants' current attorney for a manual, "page-by-page" privilege review; however, due to time constraints and the need to review thousands of documents, the defendant and defense counsel chose only to review the page titles of the documents. Only if they determined from the title that a privilege might be applicable, did the defendants review a document in its entirety.

The court immediately identified numerous problems with the defendants' explanation of their ESI search protocol, as well as the search itself. First, the court in Victor found that the defendants were "regrettably vague" in their description of the seventy keywords that they used for the text-searchable ESI privilege review; specifically, the defendants failed to inform the court how the search terms were developed, how they conducted the search itself, and what quality controls, if any, were used to assess the reliability and accuracy of the search. Second, the Victor court questioned whether the defendants and the two attorneys who created the keyword search were qualified to create a search and information retrieval strategy designed to yield a reliable privilege review. Finally, the court in Victor criticized the defendants for failing to assert that they sampled the text-searchable ESI files to determine whether the electronic keyword search was reliably identifying privileged documents.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: Mondaq News
By Joshua Horn and Beth L. Domenick

Veon data files erased

Missing information would have figured in probe of bonuses
An electronic file containing a wealth of information left behind by defeated House Minority Whip Michael Veon was erased from a computer inside the Capitol early last year, triggering an unsuccessful in-house attempt to restore the data.

The erasures, which appear to have occurred at the same time stories were breaking about large, state-funded pay bonuses for employees that had worked on Democratic House campaigns, including Mr. Veon's, appear to mark the earliest effort to destroy information that would later figure in a grand jury probe.

A series of e-mails obtained by the Post-Gazette, shows a former Veon aide, Brett Cott, attempting to log into what was called the "G" drive, a computer network shared by Mr. Veon and his staff.

"All the folders are gone," Mr. Cott wrote to employees in the House Democratic Information Technologies department on the evening of Jan. 30, 2007. "There are some random things on it but none of the folders like the scan mail folder and the mailing and polls folder. Had a few things on there that I still need."
Steve Keefer, the director of IT for the House Democrats, immediately forwarded the mail to two other employees.

"I need to find out what happened here asap!!!!!" he told them.
Over the next 36 hours, technicians went through the computer system -- a system Mr. Keefer suggested in later e-mails might have been widely compromised -- and found what appeared to be a deliberate, and largely successful, effort to erase data.

"From what we've been able to find out here, it appears that someone who had access to the folder deliberately deleted all the folders on that drive ... we have log files that should be able to tell us who ... it was done on 1/26 around noon," Mr. Keefer wrote to Mr. Cott the next morning.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: post-gazette.com

Select the Right E-mail Archiving System

Turn that e-mail flood into an asset, protect yourself from litigation, boost productivity and ensure business continuity.

Worldwide, the amount of e-mail is staggering. And it just keeps growing: IDC estimates that the volume has increased from 9.7 billion in 2000 to 97 billion in 2007. That's per day, by the way.

In the face of this onslaught, businesses small and large ask themselves: What do we do with it all?

One method of dealing with the volume is to constrain storage space. According to Brian Babineau, senior analyst for the Enterprise Strategy Group, 65% of organizations take such a "mailbox quota" approach to managing the load and place size limits on employee mailboxes. Although this approach addresses physical storage space, it forces employees to continually sort, delete, and store their e-mail messages to stay under quota. That steals precious time from other projects. It also frustrates employees accustomed to using free Web mail applications that offer virtually unlimited storage.

Fortunately, there's another option: e-mail archiving. Many companies are turning to e-mail archiving to ease their messaging woes. An e-mail archiving system isn't just backup: rather, it's an always-accessible message storehouse that can be searched and retrieved on an individual basis, as needed, almost as easily as live e-mail. Furthermore, archiving systems preserve message metadata -- important information such as where an e-mail came from, when it was sent, and the server path -- that's lost when messages are simply copied to disc or tape.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: entrepreneur.com
By: Jake Widman

Some things are hard to find

Autonomy has just announced a new e-discovery solution to increase its presence in this burgeoning space. When it bought archiving and e-discovery vendor Zantaz last year, the firm clearly signaled its intent to expand into areas related to its core competency and heritage of enterprise search. And while it`s still best known for the latter - and while it continues to make oodles of cash providing big name clients like the BBC, Boeing and Coca Cola with search technology - the e-discovery space represents a massive opportunity, as firms look to overcome the challenges presented by an increasing raft of legislation and industry regulations.

In the US, of course, e-discovery has been driven mainly by the recently updated FRCP - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - which lay down aggressive new rules for the discovery and presentation of electronic records as evidence in US courts. E-discovery, archiving, retention; they're all bound up in this area and with strict penalties for the destruction of evidence also part of the new FRCP, the stakes have been raised significantly for firms. Not that this is just a US problem either - just as SOX was felt in other countries, so the FRCP could have an impact elsewhere, including this side of the Atlantic.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: iWRBLOG
By: Phil Muncaster

Sunday, June 22, 2008

10+ legal terms you should know if your company is involved in a lawsuit

If your company gets caught up in a lawsuit, you’ll probably need to work with lawyers — even if the matter doesn’t involve something IT did or failed to do. Here are 10 legal concepts that are likely to come into play.

Let’s face it: We live in a society that loves to sue. Because much evidence is created or stored on computers, lawsuits involving companies invariably require work by its IT staff. I understand that most of you are IT pros, not lawyers. However, if your company becomes involved in a lawsuit, chances are you will have to work with lawyers, even if the matter doesn’t involve something you personally did or failed to do. Below are 10 terms that you might encounter during that process, along with their meanings.

To help put these terms in the proper context, let’s say that as part of a “reduction in force” initiative at your company, Stan, a manager there, laid off John, one of his employees. Convinced that his layoff was unlawful, John now has retained an attorney and has filed a suit against the company.

Note: This information is also available as a
PDF download.

#1: Discovery (electronic discovery, e-discovery)
Discovery is the process by which parties to a lawsuit (i.e., the sides in conflict) show each other the evidence they have and identify the witnesses they’re going to call. You know how, when playing poker, everyone lays down their cards after they’re all finished with their bets? The same principle applies with discovery, except it occurs at the beginning rather than at the end. In other words, that stuff you see in the movies or on television about the “surprise witness” is a total myth.

In our example, John might be seeking copies of his performance reviews, e-mail messages between managers in your company (including Stan) that discussed him, and other information. Because much of this information exists in electronic form, the discovery process is also called “electronic discovery” or “e-discovery.”

#2: Litigation hold
Most companies have a policy regarding retention and destruction of documents. Their IT departments have policies and practices regarding how often they back up computer data and the amount of time before backup tapes are reused, thus destroying data already on that tape.

A litigation hold is a notice to the company that these normal policies should be suspended because litigation is reasonably expected. Continuing our earlier example, suppose a backup tape contained an e-mail from Stan to the director of human resources, and it discussed John’s firing. Suppose that the tape was scheduled to be recycled, thereby erasing that e-mail. The attorney for your company might issue a litigation hold specifying that that particular tape be set aside and kept separate from the normal backup cycle.

A major objective of a litigation hold is to prevent spoliation (see below).

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: blogs.techrepublic.com
By: Calvin Sun

Sub-Prime Scandal Focuses Attention on E-Discovery

With email in the spotlight, vendors are ramping up their e-discovery efforts

E-discovery is firmly in the spotlight following the arrest of two former Bear Stearns fund managers yesterday for alleged securities fraud.

The two former execs, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, were taken into custody for their alleged roles in the collapse of two hedge funds which triggered the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Media reports suggest that an email allegedly sent by Cioffi to Tannin may be the smoking gun in the case, underlining the growing importance of e-discovery.

”I think that it’s one of the few resources that regulators have access to that can generate leads for them,” says Denise Valentine, senior analyst at the Aite Group, adding that this is unlikely to change anytime soon. “People are people, they talk [via email], they are reflexive in their responses and how they behave.”

Against this backdrop, vendors are ramping up their e-discovery efforts, fusing more and more email retrieval features into traditional storage offerings. Symantec, for example, is planning to boost the e-discovery capabilities on its Enterprise Vault product later this year, and EMC is working on a similar enhancement to its Documentum archive.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: byteandswitch.com
By: James Rogers and Mary Jander

Subdue the Costs of Document Review

Document review is anything but glorious, but it has become a desperate necessity in today's adversarial sphere of civil litigation. It has certainly become a dynamic linchpin in the fracas of electronic discovery.

Document review hasn't always garnered so much attention. Black's Law Dictionary defines "discovery" as a "pretrial device that can be used by one party to obtain facts and information about the case from the other party." Document requests are only one of several "pretrial devices" that can be used to obtain information about a case along with oral depositions, written interrogatories and physical and mental examinations (See FRCP 26-37).

The awareness surrounding document review has exploded in recent years because of the immense amount of data that spews out of every digital pore in the modern world. Human lives and corporate misdeeds are laid bare in tactless e-mail threads and relevant information prowls around the digital recesses of every computer and network server.

At its most basic level, document review segregates responsive documents to be produced from the privileged documents to be withheld. Obviously, reviewing relevant documents provides legal counsel the opportunity to uncover pertinent issues and devise their strategy, but the anguish of staring at hundreds of gigabytes worth of e-mail is becoming an impractical responsibility, not to mention a costly endeavor.

WHY IS DOCUMENT REVIEW SO EXPENSIVE?

Depending upon who you talk to, document review can account for 50 percent to 90 percent of the costs involved in a litigation matter. A 1997 study sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center reported that depositions accounted for the greatest amount of discovery expense but reported that many respondents stated that document production was becoming the most burdensome and costly part of discovery. Eleven years later, that fear has come true.

Tom O'Connor, the director of the Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center as well as the Legal Electronic Document Institute, attributes the high cost of document review to the archaic billable hour. O'Connor states that "document review is expensive because it is done predominantly by attorneys and billed accordingly -- they charge an hourly fee and often a markup."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source:
law.com
By: Brett Burney

Friday, June 20, 2008

EDD Vendors Speak Out: Views and Information on Vendor Processing of Electronically Stored Information

The field of e-discovery is growing rapidly, pushing more and more litigation support professionals to deal with increasingly large amounts of data. Litigation support professionals find themselves involved in obtaining or producing electronically stored information (ESI). If they are not already knowledgeable in the gathering of ESI, where are they to turn? One solution is to look to the e-discovery vendors. But how would personnel who may never have worked on an e-discovery project know what to ask and how to proceed? In a field where timing is crucial and costs are high, no one can afford to make a mistake or miss an important deadline. With that in mind, and with the hope of providing a starting point for working with e-discovery, the following questions were asked of vendors operating throughout the country.

What are the stages of the e-discovery process? Most e-discovery vendors responded by referring to the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), which can be found at www.edrm.net. The model was designed through the efforts of various law firms, vendors and consultants with the goal of developing a set of guidelines for e-discovery projects. The model breaks an e-discovery project into a series of steps that fall into five main stages: (1) planning the collection of the data, (2) collecting the data, (3) processing the data, (4) document review, and (5) production of non-privileged information.
-
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
By: John Cleaves

Adobe Brings an Acrobat to Perform EDD

When the time comes to turn over e-data uncovered by forensic examination, it's hardly surprising that e-mail makes up a big chunk of the evidence. Notwithstanding its prevalence, e-mail is among the more challenging evidence types to share with clients in ways they can readily review messages and attachments without corrupting the metadata.

I've tried nearly everything, including converting messages to Web formats and furnishing a browser-based viewer. That proved easy to run and navigate, but offered no search tools. Imaged formats (e.g., TIFF and JPG files) also weren't searchable without load files and demanded that my clients have an EDD review platform on hand.

Some lawyers don't have the budget for TIFF conversion and load file generation, let alone a recent copy of Concordance or CT Summation. I've furnished native formats (e.g., PST or NSF), quasinative formats (EML, MSG) and even Access or NTSearch databases, but there are many pitfalls when trying to review e-mail using desktop applications. And if you need to engage in even the tiniest bit of techno-tinkering it turns lions of the courtroom to jelly. Nothing was quite easy enough.

So, the challenge was to convert e-mail into something I could give to a client with confidence that they could:

  1. Easily open the e-mail evidence on any machine without buying software.

  2. Search messages quickly and powerfully, with full-text indexing and Boolean support.

  3. View the messages in a way that faithfully preserves their appearance.

  4. Print e-mail in a consistent way no matter what printer they used.

  5. Enjoy document security, authentication and reliable redaction, tool.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By:Craig Ball

Poor Search Methodology Can Waive Privilege

Slowly but surely, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm is writing a treatise on electronic discovery. In Hopson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,[FOOTNOTE 1] he tackled privilege waiver and warned litigants about the risks of so-called "quick peek" and "clawback" agreements. And in Lorraine v. Markel Amer. Ins.,[FOOTNOTE 2] he reminded lawyers to think critically about the admissibility of electronically stored information. In his latest ruling, Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D। Md. May 29, 2008), Magistrate Judge Grimm revisits the privilege waiver issues at the heart of Hopson and wades into the debate over search methodologies. In the end, his privilege ruling is no surprise and his comments on search methodologies will do little to calm those who are concerned that recent decisions could require litigants to hire experts to defend their chosen search methodology.

In Victor Stanley, the plaintiff sought a ruling that the defendants had waived privilege over 165 electronic documents inadvertently produced during discovery. At the outset of discovery, the parties and their computer forensic experts had met to identify a joint protocol for the search and retrieval of responsive electronic documents. Defense counsel, faced with a substantial amount of electronic data to review, originally requested a "clawback agreement" designed to address the concerns that Grimm discussed in Hopson.
[FOOTNOTE 3] When discovery was extended, however, the defendants made the fateful decision to drop this request, instead opting to conduct a full-fledged privilege review।

The defendants endeavored to perform this review on both text-searchable documents (totaling 4.9 gigabytes of data) and non-text-searchable documents (totaling 33.7 gigabytes). With regard to the text-searchable data, the defendants conducted a privilege search using about "seventy different keyword search terms." These search terms were formulated by one of the individual defendants and two attorneys. The attorneys then manually reviewed the documents returned in the privilege search, but completely neglected the remaining documents that the search did not identify as privileged. As to the non-text-searchable documents, the defendants asserted that their vast number compelled a review largely limited to "the page titles." Later, the defendants blamed their inadvertent production of 165 potentially privileged documents on their "compressed schedule and time constraints" in reviewing this non-text-searchable data. The plaintiff, however, pointed out that all of the 165 documents at issue were actually in text-searchable format.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: law.com

Thursday, June 19, 2008

E-Discovery Leads to Arrest of Bear Stearns Hedge Funds Managers

E-discovery is at the center of the arrest of two former Bearn Stearns managers, taken into custody today over their roles in the collapse of two hedge funds which triggered the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin are facing criminal charges of "securities fraud related to their management of two Bear Stearns hedge funds," an FBI spokesman said.

U.S. prosecutors focused on an e-mail allegedly sent to Ralph Cioffi, a senior portfolio manager of the two funds, by Matthew Tannin, his COO.

In the e-mail, Tannin allegedly said he was "afraid that the market for bond securities they had invested in was 'toast.' He suggested shutting the funds, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Four days later, the two managers told investors they were comfortable with their holdings, the Journal said.

Some industry observers suggest that financial firms aren't doing
enough to monitor email communications between employees, despite a host of headline-grabbing e-discovery cases in the last year.

"We see on a regular basis high-profile individuals finding themselves at the center of a scandal because of communications via electronic means," says Marie-Charlotte Patterson, VP of market strategy for AXS-One, a provider of high-performance records compliance management solutions.

"This begs the question, what is going to change in firms' behavior? What are organizations doing from a governance perspective to prevent this from happening?" she says.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com

The value of archiving and the limitations of e-discovery

Today we read about yet another major financial scandal allegedly exposed through the discovery of an e-mail message from a fund principal that apparently stated that their fund was going to be"'toast."

The first thing I thought about this was that (if true) it was a fantastically stupid communication to put in an e-mail exchange. Secondly, I wondered why it took so long to find this mail -- surely such high-profile financial managers would have their mail exchanges monitored automatically and an exchange like this should have rung every major alarm bell in the firm within seconds. Of course they could have been using an external system to get around that; we don't know at present. But this case once more highlights the limitations of e-mail monitoring (discussed here the other day) and e-discovery, and conversely the value of content archiving.

E-discovery is in many regards simply glorified
Enterprise Search technology, but with the added ability to apply legal holds to data. Just as Enterprise Search is limited by the quality and location of the content it indexes, so too are e-discovery tools. Though in the case of e-discovery the limitations are often more severe: evidence may or may not be conveniently located in an e-mail message, as seems to be the case at Bear Stearns. More commonly evidence has to be culled from not only e-mail stores, but also from instant messaging systems, document systems, ERP systems, financial and business applications, external drives, and so on. The idea that e-discovery is limited to mail -- as many vendors (and worryingly many buyers) seem to think -- is naive in the extreme. Yet this misplaced belief is based on the reality that the bulk of the data you will have to search will indeed be mail. Mail represents the largest form of data in any organization, typically by an order of magnitude (10x) or more.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: cmswatch.com

Hostile Work Environment & E-Discovery: OSC Gives On-the-job Lessons

A retreat next week for the staff of the Office of Special Counsel at the Hotel Monaco in Alexandria, VA looks like it's going to be a doozy. Most curiously, according to the agenda, it seems Special Counsel Scott Bloch thinks his staff needs training on a "hostile work environment" (11:00-12:00) and the practice of e-discovery (13:05-14:30).

A little background first. Bloch's office was
raided by two dozen FBI agents last month. Their raid was precipitated by allegations that Bloch destroyed evidence sought by investigators when he hired Geeks on Call to conduct a seven-level wipe of his laptop computer. The evidence was being sought by the Office of Personnel Management, which has had an open investigation since 2005 into the hostile work environment Bloch created with retaliation, illegal gag orders, and flouting of personnel rules, among many other things.

According to one web definition, e-discovery is:
"Electronic discovery (also called e-discovery or ediscovery) refers to any process in which electronic data is sought, located, secured, and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case."


To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: PogoBlog

Users rebel against e-Discovery liabilities

Tory Skyers’ post about dedupe and the law jogged my memory about recent conversations I’ve had with users about data compliance and archiving. It’s become a big topic for this industry, and as stewards of data, storage managers are part of the legal e-Discovery process.

But some storage managers are beginning to draw a line when it comes to the extent of their role in that process. A discussion about compliance only goes so far these days before frustration starts to show. Someone from a municipal government shop I met at Symantec Vision last week extolled the virtues of Symantec’s Enterprise Vault for data retention and said his organization has policies for dealing with litigation. But he was clear that his role in the process involves managing bits on disk, period. “I don’t delete anything without the department that owns it giving me explicit instructions,” he said. “It’s not up to me to decide to delete data–it’s up to me to keep the storage and backups running on whatever data departments want to keep.”

This week I spoke to a storage guy from a hospital about email management and archiving, and he told me his shop deletes all email after 60 days. “We wrote policies that say we don’t keep email very long because of the storage cost,” he said, and then added that he’d been told by some vendors pushing archiving that a short enough retention period could “make him look guilty.”

“I’m not guilty of anything,” retorted the user. “I’m an IT guy trying to keep email running.”

And he’s right. As long as a company’s retention policy is clearly defined and followed scrupulously, it can be just about any length of time.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------
Source: Search Storage
By: Beth Pariseau

USB flash drives: small device, major headache?

In a report issued today, ENISA, the EU Agency for European Network and Information Security, highlights the potential misuse of USB flash drives to breach security of corporate data or introduce malicious code. The Agency shares good practice in minimising the risk of uncontrolled use of such devices which can cost business anything from €65,000 to €1.6 million (£51,100 to £1.25 million) per security violation.


Today's trend of being "always on", fully mobile and connected has led to the significantly increased use of mobile devices such as notebooks and personal digital assistants. Personal storage devices such as flash drives have become universal business tools in an effort to maintain productivity when out of the office. First marketed in 2000, 85 million USB flash drives were sold in 2007.


And yet these mobile devices often lack security control - 80-90% of USB flash drives sold to business last year were not encrypted - are not stored in a secure location and used without limitation. Despite the fact that they might contain private data, financial information, business plans or other confidential records, ENISA warns that USB flash drives are usually overlooked by corporate policies on audits, back-ups, encryption and asset management.


Often devices are inadvertently lost such as when the UK Revenue and Customs misplaced an unencrypted CD-ROM with the personal details of 25 million taxpayers. In a Datamonitor survey of 1,400 ICT professionals, 60% revealed they had experienced a 'data leak', 61% of which believed it to be the work of insiders. More often than not, criminals seek out flash drives as their theft usually goes unreported due to their small size and low cost.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: itwales.com

Whacked Out on BlackBerrys in Depositions

You have seen this guy. Maybe you are this guy. Driving down the highway at 65 miles per hour, steadying the steering wheel with the backs of his hands so that he can thumb in the answer to that e-mail he just got, his wife screaming at him to stop texting while driving, he weaves just a tad into your lane as his attention is 90 percent on BlackBerry, 8 percent on driving, 2 percent on distractions like his suffering wife. You honk to get him back into his own lane. He doesn't hear you. He is in the zone. He is whacked out on a BlackBerry high -- high on CrackBerry.

"CrackBerry" was the 2006 Webster's New World College Dictionary "New Word of the Year." We are addicted to these devices. Yeah, we say, but we are addicted to air and water and food; this is a natural addiction, a good addiction. Our BlackBerrys keep us connected. We are in a service business and these wonderful devices let us render service to our clients in real time, every waking moment. But here is a caution -- when we use them at a deposition to check and return and compose e-mails, we may be violating ethical rules.

BLACKBERRY ADDICTION MAY IMPACT OUR DILIGENCE

We did not come to this view on our own; we were too busy sending and receiving messages on our BlackBerrys. We were provoked to thought by David Schott of Alton, Ill., who, in the May 2008 Illinois State Bar Association Trial Briefs suggests -- well, no, he more than suggests, he flat out opines -- that the use of a BlackBerry during a deposition is a violation of an attorney's duties to use reasonable diligence and charge reasonable fees. And with David's wake-up call, we have temporarily sobered up from our BlackBerry stupor to think this through. Join us. Come on, we know how hard it is. Put your BlackBerry down and rest your thumbs, just for a minute. Read on and think with us.

Now, part of the problem is not ethics but manners. We don't belong to country clubs, but we understand that most of them ban BlackBerrys and cell phones. (That isn't the reason we don't belong -- we just don't play the game.) But why? Cell phones we easily understand -- an untimely ring or conversation could actually distract a golfer. But silent thumbing?


To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Jerold S. Solovy and Robert L. Byman

Another Ethics Ruling on Metadata

Is it ethical to search for metadata in a document you receive from opposing counsel? As we've reported here in the past, the American Bar Association says yes but the New York County Lawyers' Association says no. Maryland and the District of Columbia have also sided with the ABA on the issue, while Arizona, Alabama and Florida agree with New York. Now, the Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar Association has weighed in with a formal opinion on review of metadata and adopted the ABA's view. It says that a lawyer may ethically review a document for metadata. If, however, the lawyer discovers confidential information within the metadata, the lawyer should assume it is there inadvertently and immediately contact the sender.

Once the Receiving Lawyer has notified the Sending Lawyer, the lawyers may, as a matter of professionalism, discuss whether a waiver of privilege or confidentiality has occurred. In some instances, the lawyers may be able to agree on how to handle the matter. If this is not possible, then the Sending Lawyer or the Receiving Lawyer may seek a determination from a court or other tribunal as to the proper disposition of the electronic documents or files, based on the substantive law of waiver.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: Legal Blog Watch
By: Robert J. Ambrogi

Women in eDiscovery Launches Los Angeles Chapter

Women in eDiscovery today announced that there is a new chapter opening in Los Angeles. Women in eDiscovery is an organization that brings together businesswomen interested in technology related to the legal industry and provides opportunities to help each other grow personally and professionally through leadership, education, networking support, and national recognition. The new chapter will officially launch in conjunction with LegalTech West Coast, June 26-27, 2008, at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

LegalTech attendees interested in joining the Los Angeles chapter can visit BOOTH 503 for more information.

“Our organization has expanded and grown at a rapid rate both nationally and across the globe. We are sure to reach the 2,000-member mark this summer and look forward to expanding chapters into Richmond, Tampa Bay, Orlando, Kansas City and Vancouver, BC soon,” stated Lana Schell, national co-founder of Women in eDiscovery. “There was a need for a forum where women could gather, exchange ideas and information, and receive guidance and support. Women in eDiscovery will continue to be that forum for years to come.”


To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: dBusinessNews.com

E-discovery is becoming much more important

Implementing an appropriate e-discovery capability is critical to the long-term viability of any organization

Discovery is the process of accessing, reviewing, analyzing and producing information during civil legal actions. The goal of discovery is to obtain information that will be useful in developing relevant information for pre-trial motions and for the trial itself. Information sought during discovery can include documents, testimony and other information deemed necessary by a court.

E-discovery is simply the extension of the discovery process to information that is stored electronically and includes e-mail, instant messages, word processing files, spreadsheets and other electronic content that may be stored on desktops, laptops, file servers, mainframes, smartphones, employees' home computers or on a variety of other platforms. Unified communications and unified messaging systems that store a variety of different data types, including voicemails and instant messages, further complicate the entire process.

E-discovery is becoming much more important in the context of civil litigation – for example, roughly three out of four discovery orders today require e-mail to be produced as part of the discovery process. E-discovery today represents 35% of the total cost of litigation, and companies that fail to produce e-mails in a timely or appropriate manner face the risk of paying millions of dollars in sanctions and fines, not to mention loss of corporate reputation, lost revenue and embarrassment.

Implementing an appropriate e-discovery capability is critical to the long-term viability of any organization, particularly larger ones that face a greater chance of being involved in civil litigation. E-discovery best practices include several key elements, starting with management recognition for the need to be ready for e-discovery to developing a set of corporate policies to implementing the right technologies that will manage corporate data properly.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: networkworld.com
By: Michael Osterman