Sign up to receive eDiscovery Daily's articles via email or add the RSS feed to your newsreader of choice.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog
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, 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 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.
April 30, 2013
Last week, we reported on potential amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that could be adopted within the year. States are busy with changes too. One such state is Minnesota, which has amending its rules to emphasize proportionality, collaboration, and informality in the discovery process.
Read moreMarch 26, 2013
During our recently concluded thought leader interview series, I had intended to line up at least one more interview – with Adam Losey, president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex.org, a technology law not-for-profit educational and literary organization and an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP. Adam also served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University, where he taught electronic discovery as part of Columbia's Information and Digital Resource Management Master's Program. Under the idea of “better late than never”, I was finally able to speak to Adam and get his thoughts on various eDiscovery topics. Enjoy! :-)
Read moreMarch 25, 2013
During our recently concluded thought leader interview series, I had intended to line up at least one more interview – with Adam Losey, president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex.org, a technology law not-for-profit educational and literary organization and an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP. Adam also served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University, where he taught electronic discovery as part of Columbia's Information and Digital Resource Management Master's Program. Under the idea of “better late than never”, I was finally able to speak to Adam and get his thoughts on various eDiscovery topics. Enjoy! :-)
Read moreJanuary 08, 2013
In December of 2011, as previously reported in eDiscoveryDaily, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware revised the “Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI)” to reflect changes in technology and to address concerns of attorneys regarding the discovery of ESI. As of January 1, 2013, more changes are in effect in Delaware.
Read moreDecember 19, 2012
As a litigation technology professional, you are probably very knowledgeable about electronic discovery and the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, so we’re not going to spend time discussing the technical aspects of eDiscovery. I would, however, like to address how electronic discovery fits into the bigger litigation picture, and how it has affected the practice of litigation. And we’ll start with how it affected the courts’ rules for how a case proceeds.
Read moreDecember 04, 2012
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has announced new Guidelines for counsel and litigants regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) effective as of last Tuesday (November 27). The Guidelines were developed by a bench-bar committee chaired by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte in partnership with the Court’s Rules Committee and unanimously approved by the entire Court.
Read moreOctober 30, 2012
We spend a lot of time discussing and referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially the changes adopted in 2006 to address handling of electronically stored information (ESI). But, not all cases are Federal jurisdiction cases. Many are state cases and each state (well, most of them anyway) have their own rules regarding eDiscovery. One of those states is Tennessee. Now, for those who practice law in Tennessee and need to address eDiscovery issues, there is a new book available to provide guidance in addressing those issues. Electronic Discovery in Tennessee: Rules, Case Law and Distinctions was written by W. Russell Taber III. I recently interviewed Russell regarding the book and asked him several questions about the book and about eDiscovery in Tennessee in general.
Read moreSeptember 20, 2012
It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog. Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom? Maybe. Or maybe not. Wouldn’t that be fun! Here are some highlights from the past six months.
Read moreSeptember 04, 2012
As we discussed last October, the state of Florida has been working to adopt new rules regarding handling of eDiscovery. Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court of Florida approved eDiscovery rule amendments that were proposed by the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Standing Committee. The amendments to address Electronically Stored Information (ESI) generally follow the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are entirely contained within existing Rules 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.340, 1.350, 1.380 and 1.410 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and went into effect this past Saturday, September 1.
Read moreJune 13, 2012
Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted amendments to the rules on how discovery of electronically stored information is handled in the state. However, the chairwoman of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Diane W. Perer, has expressly rejected federal law on the subject in her explanatory comment stating that, despite the adoption of the term “electronically stored information,” “there is no intent to incorporate federal jurisprudence surrounding the discovery of electronically stored information.” Instead, “[t]he treatment of such issues is to be determined by traditional principles of proportionality under Pennsylvania law”.
Read moreApril 30, 2012
Special Master, that is. Last week, Fios sponsored a webcast entitled Special Masters & e-Discovery with Craig Ball, who, in addition to being a prolific contributor to continuing legal and professional education programs throughout the US (and previous thought leader interviewee on this blog) has served as court-appointed special master in 30 cases (including at least one case covered here). Not surprisingly, the webcast was very informative, reflecting Craig’s considerable experience and knowledge in having served in that role in so many cases. Here are a few highlights.
Read moreMarch 07, 2012
In a blog post last October, we discussed the new model order proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader as a measure against the "excesses" of eDiscovery production. At that time, the "Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases" had been unanimously voted on by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council and, as a result, could significantly alter the way discovery materials are used in such cases. This version of the model order is included in proposed local rule amendment GO-12-06 for the Eastern District of Texas. The amendment has been approved by the judges of the district, subject to public comment, the deadline for which is March 23, a little over two weeks from now.
Read moreFebruary 02, 2012
Vendors seeking to assist attorneys in offloading substantial portions of discovery-practice need to be careful not to cross the line into the unauthorized practice of law, according to a new ethics opinion by the District of Columbia Bar. On January 12, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law released Opinion 21-12 regarding the “Applicability of Rule 49 to Discovery Services Companies.” This opinion provides guidelines for attorneys and discovery vendors regarding supervision of large-scale document reviews and vendors’ marketing practices, which are intended to prevent the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).
Read moreJanuary 11, 2012
With a nod to Nick Bakay, “It's all so simple when you break things down scientifically.” The late December/early January time frame is always when various people in eDiscovery make their annual predictions as to what trends to expect in the coming year. I know what you’re thinking – “oh no, not another set of eDiscovery predictions!” However, at eDiscovery Daily, we do things a little bit differently. We like to take a look at other predictions and see if we can spot some common trends. Ten sets of predictions in all! Here are the trends.
Read moreNovember 28, 2011
On November 1, 2011, the Southern District of New York implemented a new Pilot Program for Complex Cases in "response to the federal bar's concerns about the high costs of litigating complex civil cases." The program is "designed to improve judicial case management of these disputes and reduce costs and delay" and will run for eighteen months.
Read moreOctober 07, 2011
Florida is currently preparing to adopt a set of changes to its Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to discovery of ESI, closely founded on the changes made to the Federal Rules in 2006. Based on the recommendation of the Florida Civil Rules Electronic Discovery Subcommittee, the full Rules Committee voted on implementing changes now rather than waiting until 2013 when these rules would normally be considered.
Read moreSeptember 16, 2011
A recent article published in Texas Lawyer and reprinted on Law.com raises the question of extensive and costly eDiscovery requests and how to handle them. The authors of "Keep E-Discovery Costs from Torpedoing Litigation Budgets" present a hypothetical scenario where the opposing counsel has requested production of 10 years of legacy electronic data - a prospect that could cost more in recovery expenses than the value of the entire lawsuit. What is the best approach for counsel to take under the circumstances and what kind of legal recourse is there if producing extensive amounts of electronic information doesn't make sense? Meet Texas Rule 196.4.
Read moreAugust 17, 2011
Earlier this year, Wisconsin and Connecticut adopted new eDiscovery rules. On October 1, changes to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure will go into effect to provide guidelines for handling eDiscovery in North Carolina state courts. The rule changes, for the most part, follow the same guidelines as the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is a summary of the changes.
Read moreJuly 15, 2011
Last year, eDiscovery Daily identified states that have not currently enacted any rules changes for eDiscovery. One of the states that had previously enacted eDiscovery rules changes – Connecticut – has updated their rules as Superior Court judges made several amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book that will affect eDiscovery and other legal practices in Connecticut courts.
Read moreJanuary 03, 2011
On November 1 of last year, we noted on this blog that Oklahoma had become the latest state to adopt amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving only 14 states (including DC) to not have enacted any rules changes that address discovery of ESI as of January 1st of this year. That’s because on January 1, Wisconsin became the latest state to adopt eDiscovery amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read moreDecember 17, 2010
At the beginning of next year, 37 out of 51 states will have adopted at least some procedural rules which address eDiscovery issues. That leaves 14 states (including District of Columbia) that have not enacted any rules changes that address discovery of ESI. Here they are.
Read moreNovember 01, 2010
Though the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in December of 2006 have affected how discovery of ESI is handled in Federal courts, lawyers who practice exclusively in state court cases may not have had to consider rules for handling of ESI in their cases. Some states have adopted civil procedure rules for eDiscovery; others have not. Effective today, one state that has adopted new amendments to their Rules of Civil Procedure is Oklahoma.
Read more
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: 
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.
