Subscription Center

RSS Feed

Library

Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog

About the Bloggers

Brad Jenkins

Brad Jenkins, President and CEO of CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years of experience leading customer focused companies in the litigation support arena. Brad has authored many articles on litigation support issues, and has spoken before national audiences on document management practices and solutions.

Doug Austin

Doug Austin, Professional Services Manager for CloudNine Discovery, has over 20 years experience providing legal technology consulting and technical project management services to numerous commercial and government clients. Doug has also authored several articles on eDiscovery best practices.

Jane Gennarelli

Jane Gennarelli is a principal of Magellan’s Law Corporation and has been assisting litigators in effectively handling discovery materials for over 30 years. She authored the company’s Best Practices in a Box™ content product and assists firms in applying technology to document handling tasks. She is a known expert and often does webinars and presentations for litigation support professionals around the country. Jane can be reached by email at jane@litigationbestpractices.com.

Expert Witness

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Allows Third Party Discovery Because Defendant is an “Unreliable Source”

June 04, 2012

By Doug Austin

Repeatedly referring to the defendant’s unreliability and untrustworthiness in discovery and “desire to suppress the truth,” Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart found, in Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., that the defendant avoided responding substantively to the plaintiff’s discovery requests through a pattern of destruction and misrepresentation and therefore monetary sanctions and an adverse jury instruction at trial were appropriate.

Filed under Case Law, Electronic Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness, Identification, Information Governance, Outsourcing, Preservation, Production, Searching, Spoliation

eDiscovery Best Practices: Preparing Your 30(b)(6) Witnesses

February 08, 2012

By Doug Austin

When it comes to questions and potential issues that the receiving party may have about the discovery process of the producing party, one of the most common and direct methods for conducting “discovery about the discovery” is a deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(6). This rule enables a party to serve a deposition notice on the entity involved in the litigation rather than an individual. The notice identifies the topics to be covered in the deposition, and the entity being deposed must designate one or more people qualified to answer questions on the identified topics. Topics to be covered in a 30(b)(6) deposition can vary widely, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are some typical topics that the deponent(s) should be prepared to address.

Filed under Collection, Depositions, Electronic Discovery, Expert Witness, Preservation, Privileged, Processing, Production, Review, Searching

eDiscovery Trends: John Simek

December 16, 2011

By Jason Krause

Today’s thought leader is John Simek. John is the Vice President of Sensei Enterprises, a computer forensics firm in Fairfax, Va, where he has worked since 1997. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner and is a nationally known testifying expert in computer forensic issues. Together with his wife, Sharon Nelson, John has become a frequent speaker on eDiscovery topics and digital forensic issues. We have also interviewed Sharon, who serves as Sensei’s President, for this series, and her interview will appear this coming Wednesday.

Filed under Collection, Depositions, Electronic Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness, Preservation, Searching, Software as a Service (SaaS)

eDiscovery Case Law: Discovery Violations Result in Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel

June 29, 2011

By Doug Austin

Yesterday, we reported on a case with no sanctions; today, we report on a case with a different outcome. Both the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel have been ordered to pay sanctions for discovery abuses in a lawsuit in Washington court that was dismissed with prejudice on June 8, 2011.

Filed under Case Law, Collection, Electronic Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness, Information Governance, Production

eDiscovery Case Law: Cut and Paste Makes the Cut as Evidence

May 16, 2011

By Doug Austin

In United States v. Lanzon, 2011 WL 1662901 (11th Cir. 2011), the defendant in a criminal case appealed his conviction and raised the issue of whether he prosecution properly authenticated instant messages cut-and-pasted into a Microsoft Word document.

Filed under Case Law, Evidence, Expert Witness, Presentation, Social Technology

http://www.cloudninediscovery.com/ondemand/free-software-trial.aspx

CloudNine Discovery provides specialized national litigation support services focusing on technology in electronic discovery, computer forensics document imaging and online document review. Our nationwide litigation services company has offices in Houston, Texas.

Leaders in Litigation Support Software Services

get social with us NOW:

other resources

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and in no way indicative of the views held by CloudNine Discovery. No representation is made as to whether the information provided is the most current available. This blog/Web site is made available by the contributors solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.