By Alexander Lubarsky, Esq.
Just when we thought that we were beginning to grow familiar with the 2009 Electronic Discovery Act, the State of California had to go and promulgate some new rules pertaining to ESI to keep us E-Disco dancers moving to that changing beat.
On January 1, several new changes went into effect for the California Code of Civil Procedure. The approved amendments address the production and discovery of ESI (electronically stored information) and protections for privileged communications. Understanding these important changes is critical to ensuring best practices for in-house counsel, and effective collaboration with outside counsel. Furthermore, having a firm grasp of the new rules always makes one appear more prepared and persuasive before the judge at a status conference or when arguing a motion - and similarly allows the ESI-rule-enlightened counsel to present himself or herself as a more fearsome adversary at the California EDA required Rule 3.724 meet and confer/status conference.
In California, it has long been the standard practice to maintain a log of all privileged documents. Although many California courts have requested production of this privilege log, the new additions to the Code of Civil Procedure now require that these logs be maintained and produced by law. Additionally, if an objection to the claim of privilege is filed, the withholding party must supply sufficient proof that the claims are merited.
The question of what constitutes “sufficient factual information” remains unanswered by California case law. However, a privilege log may be able to fulfill this requirement, according to the recent amendment.
ESI: Production and Discovery
Modern business practices call for new legislative changes; the old guidelines relating to physical documentation are insufficient to address the many issues that arise when handling electronically stored information. To this end, several provisions of California’s Code of Civil Procedure were amended specifically to address the production and discovery of ESI.
ESI now falls under the scope of items that must be produced upon subpoena. Previously, only physical items were bound by these laws. This marks a dramatic shift for future litigation; subpoenas may now request access to databases and computers in order to retrieve relevant ESI.
The new amendments also provide guidelines for objections if the source material were not reasonably accessible, or if responding to such a subpoena would cause undue cost burdens. In this case, the court may order evidence production and allocate the expenses to the requesting party.
Also, while the court has always been allowed the order of sanctions for parties who fail to comply with these discovery requests, the new amendments specify that sanctions cannot be issued for failure to produce ESI if the data in question has been altered, overwritten, damaged or lost due to routine maintenance when operating in good faith.
A court generally has the discretion to issue sanctions for the failure to comply with discovery requests. Under the new amendments, however, a court may not issue sanctions for the failure to produce electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered or overwritten as the result of routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
Although it’s taken six years for them to catch up, California’s updated Civil Procedures now more closely mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A new appreciation for the central role of ESI both in daily operations and during litigation is establishing new precedents for future legal proceedings.
TERIS has the tools and experience needed to create Privilege Logs, utilizing customized review tools to automate the process that meet the requirements of California’s State and Federal rules.
By doing your research upfront, you can deal with e-discovery without breaking your budget. There are a number of ways that you can cut costs and avoid significant financial set back. Below are nine tips that can help you save money - while still meeting all of your e-discovery needs and responsibilities.
- Streamline your e-discovery operations.
- Pare your procedures down to what is absolutely necessary. Sometimes with e-discovery, services or products might appear necessary initially, but prove to be superfluous upon more closely looking into the process.
- Become familiar with your options
- To find the most effective ways of handling ESI and electronic discovery procedures, you should familiarize yourself with the technology and processes available. You can acquire this familiarity by browsing through Internet articles on the subject, following blogs, and perusing the websites of service and product providers.
- Consult experts
- In the long run, it might prove better to seek the advice and expertise of a professional rather than taking the risk by handling e-discovery matters yourself. You could find that you've overlooked a particular electronic discovery need or that you've purchased a piece of software or equipment that doesn't properly meet your needs.
- Understand the process and how it relates to your needs.
- This is another aspect of electronic discovery that often takes a lot of research. Knowing the e-discovery process and applying it to your unique situation will help you make more informed decisions when purchasing services and/or solutions.
- Divide and conquer
- Leverage the combined knowledge of your firm by holding a meeting to deal with the electronic discovery issues at hand. Assign stakeholders research duties into particular solutions and products, become knowledgable and share the knowledge among the team.
- Keep up with the news and note electronic discovery changes
- Electronic discovery and ESI are still somewhat new and developing procedures, and rulings and regulations regarding electronic discovery are still changing on a regular basis. If you want to minimize your electronic discovery costs, it is imperative that you are aware of any new development in electronic discovery so you can discontinue a function if you no longer are responsible for it.
- Listen to your IT staff
- The team who best understands electronic discovery and the demands it places on your firm might just be your IT staff. They will be familiar with searching for data in your firm's computers and they will be able to critique a package of e-discovery software on its merits and flaws.
- Determine the best production format for your situation
- When you are in position to dictate the production format, consider which is best. You may be most familiar with one to two types of formats – but there are other options that can result in efficiencies and savings.. Weigh the pros against the cons and go with the option that gives you an advantage.
Although electronic discovery can place a burden on a firm, there are many ways to reduce costs and simplify the process. Being vigilant and putting sufficient time and effort into researching the possibilities can help you find affordable and practical electronic discovery solutions. The tips explained above are just some basic ways to save time and money in electronic discovery – but there are obviously many others.
By Andrew Bayer, CEDS
Director of Business Development, TERIS San Diego
To insource or to outsource, that is the question.
Over the past few years, law firms and corporations alike have faced this crucial decision about handling their respective organization’s eDiscovery matters. The debate seems to be gaining even further traction, with several articles published recently by respected experts in the field of eDiscovery which utilize a combination of statistics and opinion to defend and validate both points of view.
As proponents from either side continue to defend their decisions, TERIS has remained a steadfastly neutral organization – a Switzerland of eDiscovery management, if you will. In our eyes, the value propositions remain the same: to ensure that our wide array of services and solutions are implemented appropriately in a case-specific, consultative, and defensible manner.
In his “Five Reasons to Outsource Litigation Support,” Ralph Losey, National eDiscovery Counsel for Jackson Lewis, presents the steps he and his firm took during a nine-month investigatory process to determine whether their firm should rely on outside support for eDiscovery or bring all matters in-house. Eventually, it was decided that an outsourced approach was the best fit for Jackson Lewis and, most importantly, their clients. Losey’s list of “five reasons your firm should consider outsourcing” include:
A belief that the core competencies of a law firm should remain focused on giving legal advice and not providing eDiscovery services;
Non-legal eDiscovery services are highly complex to perform correctly;
The costs involved with establishing and maintaining a litigation support department can be extensive;
Liability and risk issues are a concern should errors occur from services conducted internally; and finally,
There are ethical implications with a law firm providing “law-related” services as opposed to legal advice.
Although Losey’s statements were directed toward law firms, the same concepts he presented could indeed apply to corporations as well.
Ultimately, Jackson Lewis decided to select one organization that could provide an all-encompassing eDiscovery managed services program for the firm’s needs. Similar to this arrangement, TERIS has been engaged and has subsequently established itself as the sole or preferred provider for various law firms and corporations throughout the United States. TERIS’s primary focus, when implementing a managed services program, is on project management and transparency. It behooves the clients of TERIS to have an in-depth understanding as to what might be going on behind the scenes while maintaining open lines of communications between all parties - be they in-house legal or outside counsel.
In stark contrast to Ralph Losey’s article, Bryan Bratcher (Senior Manager of Litigation Support) and Tom Baldwin (Chief Knowledge Officer) of the law firm Reed Smith, published an article which questions the utility of a firm or organization outsourcing everything. In their “6 Reasons to Insource Litigation Support,” Bratcher and Baldwin do credit Losey and his firm for certain “valid arguments as to why some firms might outsource these [eDiscovery] services,” but argue that the alternative approach, i.e., insourcing, is a better fit for their firm and potentially for many others.
Noting that eDiscovery-related expenses can constitute upwards of 18% of an organization’s total expenditures, Bratcher and Baldwin point out the following:
Insourcing can provide cost savings to the firm’s clients through their leveraging of technology to reduce review times (they cite the RAND report which states that approximately 73% of litigation-related expenses revolve around the review process);
The expertise of the individuals that comprise the litigation support team is generally a hybrid of people with eDiscovery experience both in the law firm and/or service provider setting;
The institutional knowledge afforded the in-house team as they work side-by-side with the attorneys;
The trust that is built by attorneys working next to the same analysts that are supporting them;
The fact that internal teams take more accountability for their work product; and finally,
The ability to more thoroughly manage any vendors that may be utilized for specialized or overflow-related projects.
Once again, the theories and opinions expressed by Baldwin and Bratcher can also apply to those corporations that might be considering the idea of insourced eDiscovery services.
When it comes to insourcing, TERIS adds value by acting as a heavily relied upon extension of the internal litigation support teams. As Bratcher and Baldwin mentioned, there will always be a need to rely upon outside service providers under the appropriate circumstances.
TERIS is often called upon to aide in situations that organizations may not be equipped to handle. These situations might be as a result of timing, i.e., the deadline is too tight and they must rely on an operation with more throughput. Further, a need may exist for a specialized service or solution that the organization has not yet internalized. Lastly, and likely the most predominant situation, is when volume exceeds their internal capabilities. Often, firms and corporations will establish internal thresholds and anything that exceeds that will be outsourced.
In the eDiscovery industry, the insourcing vs. outsourcing question will likely continue to be debated for many years to come. What is clear is that there is no definitive answer one way or another; finding a definitive solution truly takes a long-term analysis, firm-by-firm, corporation-by-corporation, with an extensive vetting period. However, regardless of the ultimate decision, TERIS offers in-depth, experience-based managed services approaches which fit both models – a true Switzerland of eDiscovery.
One of the primary reasons for skyrocketing e-discovery costs is that so many enterprises fail to keep their data organized in the first place. However, by maintaining strict control of electronic discovery data, these organizations can enjoy multiple benefits, from saving on litigation costs to achieving real peace of mind.
1. Lower Data Risk
Scattered data is vulnerable data. When you keep a firmer grip on your e-discovery data, protection capability and levels increase. Companies know where their data is, and are able to track and classify that data, as well as maintain accurate inventory. Knowing where relevant data can be retrieved is an important contributor to adjusting protections accordingly.
2. Greater Flexibility
When control is maintained over e-discovery data, companies and their litigation support teams both enjoy a greater level of flexibility. It’s easier to measure productivity levels within a single department as well as across other teams. Other integral elements of an effective e-discovery strategy, like early case assessment, become easier to carry out and deliver more accurate results.
3. Improved Defensibility
The discovery process is worthless without defensibility. Maintaining strict data control allows for true defensibility: creating a repeatable process, tracking the chain of custody and keeping records of how and when relevant data has been accessed or changed. Putting a system in place to control your data will put an end to questions about defensibility.
4. Saving Big
When data is controlled properly, companies can save both in time and money during the litigation process. Data that’s easy to locate is easy to produce during discovery, preventing many wasted hours sorting through irrelevant gigabytes. Having a plan in place for your data before litigation even starts will drastically reduce e-discovery costs, as well as streamline the process from start to finish.
There’s an easy way to eliminate the stress associated with inaccurate data sets, conflicting data and lost or missing entries: control your data. Put an end to second-guessing and improve clarity by setting up comprehensive data control procedures. Effective governance will ensure that your workflow complies with any necessary guidelines, and that any relevant data can be retrieved as needed, with a minimum of fuss.
Without a data solution that provides clear control, discovery costs will continue rising unchecked, due to the lost time spent attempting to find relevant data in a disorganized system. By implementing a sound structure for controlling internal data, organizations will see significant savings during litigation, specifically due to the huge reduction in e-discovery costs.
Download our Free White Paper: Ethical Implications of Social Media:
A recent survey from Symantec Corporation reports that the majority of organizations just aren’t prepared for comprehensive e-discovery requests. The underlying problem? Although intentions are good, the implementation part of the process is lacking.
These days, most companies have data retention policies all outlined and ready to go. In fact, Symantec’s survey reports that the percentage of organizations who did not have a plan was cut in half from the preceding year. Increased efforts are being made toward that end; only seven percent of surveyed organizations still report zero plans for data retention, down from 14 percent.
However, the number of those respondents who report that those plans are implemented and operational is not encouraging: just a third of those same companies have effectively put data retention policies into daily practice in such a way that would help facilitate any e-discovery requests. When asked for their reasons, most respondents report that costs are prohibitive to adopting the new strategies.
On average, the surveyed participants received 17 ESI requests from various sources. Failure to retrieve and deliver the data occurred 31 percent of the time, an increase in 20 percent from the previous year. This number correlates with the disconnect between theory and practice when looking at retention policies, many of which have been adopted in an effort to meet either internal or external compliance regulations.
As regulations continue tightening, more organizations will become responsible for producing increasingly obscure data, shifting the parameters of data retention procedures yet again. Changing methods to meet new compliance standards will quickly become a cost that companies can no longer afford to ignore.
The price of e-discovery efforts alone may account for over 50 percent of total litigation costs during a major case. Regardless of the high price tag associated with new data retention policies, that investment will save companies tremendously over the long haul, especially if faced with discovery requests.
Solution providers like TERIS can help companies be prepared, bridging the gap between theoretical plans for data retention and actual follow-through. Choosing a company that already has a vast understanding of insider knowledge when it comes to litigation helps reduce the types of vulnerabilities that may arise when following a strictly IT protocol toward data retention instead. By taking a proactive approach toward the possibility of e-discovery, TERIS helps companies lay the groundwork for a more effective data retention strategy, resulting in more effective and less costly litigation.
The Northern District of California recently issued new ESI guidelines in order to promote cooperation among all parties and reduce litigation costs, particularly in regards to eDiscovery. This new issuance of guidelines has several specific goals, and is potentially setting the tone for new, industry-wide standards.
Goals in Setting New Guidelines
The overarching ideal set forth by these new ESI guidelines calls for greater efficiency, increased cooperation, and proportionate eDiscovery:
“These Guidelines should guide the parties as they engage in electronic discovery. The purpose of these Guidelines is to encourage reasonable electronic discovery with the goal of limiting the cost, burden and time spent, while ensuring that information subject to discovery is preserved and produced to allow for fair adjudication of the merits. At all times, the discovery of ESI should be handled consistently with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 to 'secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.'
"These Guidelines also promote, when ripe, the early resolution of disputes regarding the discovery of ESI without Court intervention.”
By reducing the amount of court intervention required during discovery disputes, litigation costs will be significantly lowered.
New Guidelines: An Overview
One of the primary standards in the new ESI guidelines involves proactive, mutual agreement regarding discovery procedures. Both parties are now required to address the question of preservation at the outset of the case, or even earlier. Discussions should also be continued throughout proceedings, to ensure all parties stay on target. If the parties are unable to resolve preservation disputes, then the issue must be immediately addressed with the court before further damage is done.
Additionally, both parties are encouraged to discuss a strategy for discovery in order to ensure that the most relevant information is delivered first, and also to discuss any potential difficulties with regard to preservation. The estimated scope and source of electronically stored information to be produced should also be discussed.
One of the most interesting portions of the new guidelines states that both parties should assign a designated “eDiscovery liaison,” particularly in the event of a discovery dispute. The liaison will be responsible, knowledgeable about procedure and limitations, as well as able to explain the ins and outs to those less experienced.
The ESI guidelines from California set, above all, an expectation for cooperation among all parties involved in litigation. With an emphasis on a more cooperative process, costs will be reduced and the entire litigation and discovery process will become far more efficient. If the measures taken in this district prove effective, they may well determine a new standard for other district courts across the nation.
Guest Post by Julia Romero Peter, Esq.
TERIS Vice President, Business Development
For the past thirty years, electronic data storage systems have evolved so rapidly that many corporations struggle to understand the legal ramifications of inappropriate information retention methodologies. While it is immediately seen as unethical and illegal to physically shred incriminating documents in anticipation of litigation, the failure of some companies to preserve their information adequately is often viewed as equally improper. In the event of litigation, it is critically important that all parties have sufficient electronic documentation retention systems in place. This was the case in Scentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase LLC, where questionable information retention practices had surprising and, to many in the legal profession, frightening consequences.
In the case of Scentsy, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to submit key documents due to deliberate spoliation resulting from an improper litigation hold. There, the litigation hold was given orally, not in writing. It was argued by defense counsel that while the litigation hold was issued around the time that the claim was filed—two months before the claim was filed, specifically—the plaintiffs anticipated filing suit the previous year, thereby giving them time to eliminate critical data from their electronic files.
The argument called into question the plaintiff’s document retention practices. Their system, which saved all non-email documents on either the user’s personal computer or the company server; but automatically deleted emails after six months, was considered inadequate by the court. Additionally, the method of litigation hold raised great concern. Even though the defendant was unable to admit any evidence that pointed to the plaintiff’s having deliberately destroyed files, the court found that the information retention policies and procedures were so dubious that it issued an order that the plaintiff was to cover the cost of the defense’s deposition (including attorney’s fees) of the relevant individuals in the plaintiff’s organization. Furthermore, the court found that if it later determined that spoliation did occur, then many of the plaintiff’s charges would be dismissed.
The collection of electronically-stored information (ESI) for the purpose of submitting it into evidence is the process of eDiscovery. If this information is gathered improperly, it is inadmissible as evidence and, as indicated by the court’s ruling in Scentsy, Inc. v. B.R. Chase LLC, it can lead to outright dismissal or other negative consequences.
Having effective Legal Hold and eDiscovery practices in place is crucial, but it is equally important that those practices are defensible. Having information governance and eDiscovery experts provide consultations and comprehensive, defensible best practices and solutions will ultimately result in a thoroughly defensible approach to ESI.
Special Blog Post By Peter vR Sternkopf, TERIS CTO
In the very early days of eDiscovery, the market was defined by several independent software providers, utilized for the most part directly by law firms. As the technology and market have changed, several of these smaller providers have either vanished or been consolidated into larger companies. The challenges of remaining sustainable include the variation in clientele (service providers, corporations, and law firms) as well as the rapidly changing industry demands. Despite these challenges, and out of over 200 software applications, there are several notable software providers currently dominating the eDiscovery market.
Exterro’s integrated, all-in-one e-discovery platform, Exterro Fusion, enables legal and IT teams to manage the most daunting complexities and challenges often encountered in the convergence of eDiscovery and information governance. Historically the main competition for PSS Atlas (IBM), Exterro similarly provides management tools for discovery workflow as well as legal holds. With the addition of further capabilities in modular format, Exterro offers a more comprehensive solution than point-based software.
Autonomy IDOL Server
This branch of HP, focused specifically on the eDiscovery market, is considered one of the primary providers within the industry for enterprise clientele.
Viewpoint (by Lateral Data a Xerox company)
Viewpoint software is an all-in-one e-Discovery platform that covers the core components of the electronic discovery lifecycle, including Collection, Early Case Assessment, Processing, Analysis, Review and Production.
Nuix's eDiscovery software specializes in Early Case Assessment (ECA) with focus on extremely fast metadata/text extraction and indexing, analysis toolset, first-pass review, production and export. Their powerful technology is geared toward normalizing an organization’s unstructured data stores, making them instantly searchable and more manageable.
eCapture (by IPRO)
eCapture can handle virtually any electronic file type and email store, and offers powerful searching, de-duping, filtering and compound document handling; designed to handle large eDiscovery projects with speed and scalability utilizing a distributed, multi-threaded and centralized management system.
Venio FPR provides a single source for data culling, processing, ECA analytics, review, and production.
AD ECA is a stand-alone processing, culling and filtering solution. It focuses on the processing and first-pass review stages of the e-discovery life cycle and comes in both software and appliance formats.
X1 Social Discovery
X1 Social Discovery is designed to effectively address social media content from the leading social media networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. In addition, it can crawl, capture and instantly search content from any website. Unlike archiving and image capture solutions, X1 Social Discovery provides for a matter-centric workflow from search and collection through production in searchable native format, while preserving critical metadata not possible through image capture, printouts, or raw data archival of RSS feeds.
The Cloud Preservation service automatically crawls your web properties at chosen intervals, building an archive of html source code and resources, high quality snapshots, and a robust full-text search index. The service makes it a breeze to go back in time with all of your websites, blogs, Twitter accounts and Facebook fan pages to search content, preview the site, and export data.
Nexidia makes audio recordings easily reviewable and replaces the costly process of manual transcription and human listening with an efficient alternative. Nexidia's patented technology quickly indexes large volumes of recorded audio using phoneme patterns - providing higher accuracy than dictionary-dependent, speech-to-text based audio search. Advanced query technology and metadata integration allows reviewers to drill directly into the audio content.
Specifically geared toward providing technology-assisted review, this company shows promise in the predictive coding market and may expand this base in the future.
Content Analyst Analytical Technology (CAAT)
The CAAT platform is a dynamic suite of technologies known as Text Analytics. It provides organization tools for classification and email analysis; concept search; and other text analytics capabilities that automate most of the human activity traditionally associated with using unstructured data.
Enterprise Vault (by Symantec)
An enterprise communication and ESI archiving system that connects to Exchange, Domino/Lotus, SharePoint, file shares, PST/NSF archives, Database/ERP systems, IM systems and Blackberry SMS/PIN. Enterprise Vault enables users to store, manage, and discover unstructured information across the organization.
StoredIQ Information Intelligence Platform
The technology can discover, index, tag, classify, and act on unstructured and semi-structured data from a variety of different sources including file servers, email, archives, document management systems, and tape. Early case assessment can be performed prior to collection.
While suitable for any application that requires full text indexing and searching capability, Lucene has been widely recognized for its utility in the implementation of Internet search engines and local, single-site searching; and especially well-suited for eDiscovery software implementations.
The dtSearch Engine lets developers quickly add dtSearch’s proven “industrial-strength” searching, and file format and other data support, to applications.
Relativity (by kCura)
As a feature-rich review platform, Relativity provides image and native file review, diverse coding options, flexible workflow capabilities, integrated productions, foreign language support, text analytics, and visual data analysis.
Xera (by iCONECT)
XERA is a review platform designed with advanced Web technologies focused on the review, analysis, and production of electronically stored information (ESI). With the release of XERA, iCONECT delivers a new standard in legal review applications for law firms and corporations that expect to interact with technology in an intuitive and efficient manner.
Clearwell (a Symantec Company)
Purchased by Symantec last year, the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform was purpose-built for eDiscovery and was one of the first companies in this market to offer very niche-specific software.
There are also several up-and-comers who are turning their focus more intently toward eDiscovery, and may soon give the top contenders a run for their money. These include:
Microsoft: Already the major software leader for just about every other use, Microsoft continues to add more eDiscovery functionality into its products, such as SharePoint and Exchange. While it’s unclear whether a firm entrance into the discovery market is in mind, the company seems poised and ready to enter that market at will.
Google: With the advent of Google Vault, a program which offers archival and discovery functionality for Google Apps users, it’s very possible that more specific discovery software may be released in the future. Google is also extremely budget-friendly, with Google Vault running at a cost of just $50/year/per user.
IBM: Providing a range of product functionality, IBM (and its acquired PSS Atlas) offers just about everything from evidence collection and assessment to legal hold issuances. There is a primary focus on defensibility, reducing legal vulnerability and discovery costs simultaneously.
In addition, there is of course a multitude of vendors and service providers who use their own proprietary software. As the growing trend of eDiscovery continues, the list of industry leaders will only become even more impressive.
For more information and comparison tools, visit The eDJ Tech Matrix
Ediscovery has become a necessity within the legal profession rather than an occasional novelty. The powerful capabilities of electronic discovery are very impressive, and can benefit your company even more so by focusing on several key qualities.
1. Powerful Search Function
Any electronic discovery tool must be able to collect all the data you could need as evidence, and also have comprehensive search capabilities. This includes searching not only active files but archived data as well, and by multiple factors: concepts as well as words or phrases. Results should be delivered quickly and in an easily understandable format.
Searching data isn’t enough; you also need a system for keeping all that gathered information organized and easily accessible. Make sure your ediscovery tool is capable of indexing files and documents, or create a dedicated database from scratch. File conversion capability is a necessary part of this process.
Your platform must be able to handle large amounts of data. Very often in data mining, one gem uncovered leads to entirely new trails. A low-capacity system will quickly become irrelevant and frustrating.
The electronic discovery service provider you choose should also be an economical choice. The stronger your return on investment, the less money is tied up in the discovery process which may be better allocated elsewhere.
The more user-friendly a program is, the more positively it will impact your ROI. Although you want a comprehensive search and analysis potential, you also want it quickly and with a minimum of specialized training.
Usability should not, however, come at the cost of functionality. Your ediscovery has to be able to manage complex projects efficiently, including data from a variety of sources: spreadsheets and documents as well as emails.
Any electronic discovery software used must be compatible with other software your legal team may already be using, so data conversion capability is a must. Data should be able to be converted into other formats easily, including images or text.
Compatibility of your discovery software is essential not only with other litigation software you may be using but also with your legal team. Any program used has to be in alignment with the requirements of you and your staff. This includes data format, general manageability, and other user-end qualities which are necessary to you.
9. Preservation of Data Integrity
If the integrity of your data is called into question, all electronic discovery efforts will be wasted effort. Your ediscovery tool must ensure total preservation of all original data.
The Big Picture
Although naming specifics is easy, it’s important to remember to look at the big picture as well. A good ediscovery tool will enhance defensibility, accelerate case assessment and contribute to a significant reduction in review workload. Investigations should be completed more quickly, and data must be collected and searchable, without its integrity being called into question. These qualities, plus compatibility with your existing team and methods, are what ultimately define the ideal ediscovery tool.
ABTL Annual Seminar – September 19-23, 2012
TERIS is excited to announce that it will be one of the title sponsors – in partnership with Aptus Court Reporting – at the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) Annual Seminar to be held September 19-23, 2012, in Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii. Established in 1972, the ABTL now represents over 4000 top California trial lawyers.
The topic for this year’s seminar is “Does your Technology Meet the Jury’s Expectations? Trying the Social Media Case with Cutting-Edge Technology.”
Aptus and TERIS will have a table at the event offering co-branded materials and SWAG. Patrick Conolly, Managing Partner at TERIS San Diego, and Ashley Walton, Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Aptus will attend this four-day event and staff the table.
For more information, please visit the ABTL website at http://www.abtl.org/annualseminar.htm.
FBA Annual Meeting & Conference – September 20-22, 2012
TERIS is also proud to sponsor the Federal Bar Association’s (FBA) 2012 Annual Meeting and Conference from September 20-22, 2012, in San Diego, California. The FBA consists of more than 15,000 federal lawyers, including 1,200 federal judges.
This year’s event will feature CLE sessions on current trends in civil, criminal, and bankruptcy law with prominent speakers including Ninth Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace and Mary M. Schroeder, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, and Judy Clarke. To learn more about this event, please visit the FBA website at http://www.fedbar.org/Education/Calendar-CLE-events/2012-Annual-Meeting-and-Convention.aspx