Archive for January, 2010

Zubulake Revisited? Dissecting the Pension Committee vs Banc of America Opinion

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

When: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1 p.m EST
Where: Webinar

THE SEDONA CONFERENCE® “VOICES FROM THE DESERT” WEBINAR SERIES PRESENTS “ZUBULAKE REVISITED? DISSECTING THE PENSION COMMITTEE V. BANC OF AMERICA OPINION” – WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 AT 1:00 PM EASTERN

The first major judicial opinion on e-discovery for 2010 was delivered by a judge who was already a distinguished jurist in the field and it harkened back to a landmark decision from the past. The January 15 Amended Opinion and Order in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al. was titled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later [pdf]” by its author, Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, who stated, “Once again, I have been compelled to closely review the discovery efforts of parties in a litigation, and once again have found that these efforts were flawed. As famously noted, ‘[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’”

Pension Committee details the data preservation efforts of 13 plaintiff investors who joined an action to recover an alleged half-billion dollars in losses from the liquidation of two British Virgin Islands-based hedge funds. More to the point, the opinion details the lack of preservation efforts by the plaintiffs, finding that seven of the plaintiffs acted negligently and six of the plaintiffs acted with gross negligence, resulting in the probable loss or destruction of relevant data, and requiring further discovery, monetary sanctions, and a carefully-crafted spoliation instruction to the jury. In her lengthy opinion [pdf], Judge Scheindlin discusses the duty of preservation and what it requires of parties, distinguishes between the various levels of culpability in the plaintiffs’ conduct, explores the shifting burdens of proof in spoliation claims, and sets out the appropriate remedies for the failure to preserve electronically stored information in litigation.

In this webinar, our distinguished panel will take a careful look at the Pension Committee opinion and what it teaches all of us – plaintiffs, defendants, and the Judiciary – about the duty of preservation and the sanctions for spoliation. The panel will be moderated by Ken Withers (Director of Judicial Education and Content, The Sedona Conference®) and will include Hon. Elizabeth Laporte (United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California) attorneys Jonathan Redgrave (Nixon Peabody LLP) and Jennifer Young (Milberg LLP), and veteran e-discovery technical expert John Jessen (Datacon/Electronic Evidence Discovery).

TO REGISTER and for more details, please go to our WGS Audio Update Series homepage. The registration fee for this program is only $99 for the general public and $79 for members of The Sedona Conference® Working Group Series.

Once registered, you will be able to listen to the discussion by telephone, view PowerPoint slides, download selected program materials, and ask questions during a question-and-comment period.

1.25 HOUR OF MCLE ACCREDITATION will be applied for in the following jurisdictions:

California
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
Tennessee
Texas
Wisconsin

Each person who wants to receive MCLE credit must register and participate INDIVIDUALLY. Group or location registration will not be recognized for MCLE credit.

Follow this link for more information about the ruling
ou bien en français
.

A new blog on the New Ontario Rules?

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

While doing my monthly domain name shopping, I stumbled upon what might become an interesting blog: http://www.ontariorulesofcivilprocedure.com/ It was created only 3 days ago and has no content, except the logo of the law firm behind it: Fraser Milsner Casgrain. Can someone tell me what is the big red square on top of their logo?
FMC

E-Discovery Shorty Award

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

ShortyThe second annual Shorty Awards, honoring the “Best Producers of Short Real-Time Content” on Twitter, will be held in March 2010. This year sees the birth of “The Year’s Best Ediscovery on Twitter“. Ledjit woul dlove to win, for whatever it means… No matter who you vote for, vote here and make sure the organizers know e-discovery should be an official category!

First Neutral Citation

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Concluding twelve years of efforts from a lot of JTAC members, Justice Fran Kiteley, from the Ontario Superior Court and a former JTAC member, rendered the first judgment using neutral citation in R. v. ANDREW DEL RICCIO, 2010 ONSC 01. Congratulations!

Here are the documents prepared by JTAC which relate to this great initiative:

With Liberty and E-Discovery for All

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

In his new article entitled “E-Discovery for Everybody: the EDna Challenge” [PDF], award-winning columnist and certified trial lawyer Craig Ball asks those of us in the e-discovery industry if we can shift our “gaze from the golden calf” to the other “85% of the potential market for desktop discovery tools”. Mr. Ball thinks we should, and offers the readers an informative survey of the tools, best practices, and practical advice to follow if one decides to head in that direction. Among his recommendations or those he cites from a good dozen experts in the field is the use of dtSearch, Aid4mail, Adobe Acrobat, Quick View, Trident Lite or Vound Software; he includes Microsoft Office Access and Outlook but cautions against the corruption of metadata when using them to review case files.

Experts who weighed in on the question gave a broad range of advice, from a suggestion by John Simek of Sensei Enterprises in Virginia to “budget an hour of a consultant’s time” for help developing a work plan; and Dominic Jaar of Ledjit Consulting, Inc.’s “doleful” though sage admonition “to stay far away” from cheap e-discovery solutions — better to spend one’s small budget on “coffee and malpractice coverage”; to Floridian forensic examiner David Kleiman’s humorously irreverent quote to budget for “alcohol and amphetamines” when faced with a small budget and the “toil ahead”.

A quick summary of Mr. Ball’s advice:

1. Make a working copy of the data (before processing).
2. Generate an inventory of all files and their metadata.
3. Divide the components of the collection into a logical scheme.
4. Expand files that hold messages and other files.
5. De-duplicate the files.
6. Don’t process and review Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in a vacuum.

Follow this link to read the full article [PDF]. Many thanks to Mr. Ball and to all who participated in the survey. Let’s see if the advice proves true for the underserved teeming masses and to invalidate the “mistaken belief that e-discovery is just for the country club set.”

Ontario E-Discovery Rules of Civil Procedure Now In Effect

Friday, January 1st, 2010

OntariologoLargeWith the arrival of 2010, the new Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect in Ontario, as announced on the website of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Rules were substantially reformed in an effort to achieve Honourable Coulter A. Osborne’s goal to “make the civil justice system more accessible and affordable.” The reforms include changes to Summary Judgment, Mediation, Third Party Claim, Discovery, and dozens of other rules. Of particular interest to Ledjit readers, the changes related to discovery represent a positive step towards control over the time and expense associated with civil proceedings in this new era of e-discovery.

Here are some highlights as gleaned from the Ministry’s website and gathered from the recently published on-line version of the Rules of Civil Procedure: (more…)

Gartner’s E-Discovery Product Vendors MarketScope – Part I

Friday, January 1st, 2010

Gartner just published its third annual MarketScope For E-Discovery Product Vendors report. It provides an excellent scan of the current e-discovery software landscape.  However, it must be noted that “the criteria for vendor inclusion in this year’s MarketScope have changed because the market has changed. The emerging nature of the market justified inclusion of smaller vendors in 2008, but this year’s revenue cutoff of $15 million reflects the growing maturity of the players, as well as their consolidation and growing revenue bases.” [our underlinings] While I can understand the rationale behind such a decision, I think it negatively impacts the impressions that buyers might have of this still developing market. Our experiences over the last years is that the best technologies often come from small players in the market. Even if we agree that, generally, consolidations will benefit the already big players, many smaller players we deal with are broadening their reach on a yearly basis.

What comes out strongly from this report is the fact that corporations are currently internalizing e-discovery by developing policies, protocols and processes complemented with software and hardware to reduce their dependence on third parties, namely forensic shops and service bureaus. This conclusion is confirmed by our experience in the Canadian and International markets: ”Enterprises purchasing e-discovery software can reduce the costs of litigation by improving their control over unstructured content, and semistructured content, most notably e-mail. Our client references consistently report that they have cut costs and risks by taking control of litigation hold, litigation hold-tracking, file collection, file processing and legal review, instead of outsourcing these functions. [our underlinings]

One of the reasons why some legal and IT departments are having troubles developing a clear business case for an E-Discovery Readiness Assessment (”ERA”) is “because the work of legal and regulatory response is spread over different departments, and legal matters can span multiple years, traditional cost accounting does not do a good job of tracking the cost of litigation and regulation.” This is a reality we have seen at most of our clients’. However, certain market and in-house metrics can help organisations make the case for e-discovery readiness.

Ledjit is currently reviewing the report and will further post about it over the coming days. In the mean time, you can buy the report or get a complimentary copy.

Hat tip to Clearwell Systems for the complimentary copy!