Category Archives: courts and

matrix of e-discovery software

How eDiscovery Works

How eDiscovery Works

Greg Buckles of the EDRM Project has created an easy to use, expandable matrix of e-discovery specific applications. This is not the only legal software list (litigation support firm lexbe has one here, and Findlawhas long had some level of software listings) this one should make it easy to sort through the veritable forest of ED applications out there, all of which claim to be the greatest thing since you-know-what.

ABA TechShow: The Video

Live from TechShow 2009 ...

Live from TechShow 2009 ...

 

Thought I’d share some choice video from TechShow 2009 featuring all 4 of the Best of Show winners that I wrote up in TechnoLawyer, plus interviews with some of my heroes such as Bob Ambrogi, Jay Funeberg, and Kevin O’Keefe, as well as sightings of legal blogging all-stars like Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighelle. I’m still excited.  

 

See related videos here and find me on YouTube as practicehacker

ABA TechShow 2009 – Short and SaaSy

Were the ABA Damnit!

We're the ABA Damnit! We own you!

This was my 10th year at ABA Technology Show in Chicago. This year was particularly cool.  Here’s why:

Meeting The Heavies: To me, seeing people like Dennis Kennedy, Tom Mighelle, Bob Ambrogi, Jim Calloway, Kevin O’Keefe, Brett Burney, Andy Atkins, Jay Foonberg (!) and the rest of my pretend blog friends … I mean pretend LinkedIn friends … is like reconnecting with long lost relatives. Exciting and a little intimidating. But all of them were really great and down to earth. Except that Kennedy. Such a prima donna. I kid, I kid.

Meeting Canadians: Who can forget meeting the Great Librarian of Upper Canada! Beat that. Then there was Phil of the Future (my name for him), Steve Matthews (nice guy), Brett Burney (I think he’s Canadian), Dominic Jaar (vive la Quebec libre!), the boys from Clio (or as I called them, the Booth Babes), and a host of other talent from the Great White North. It was great to meet you all: now go back where the ice doesn’t melt until July.

Technology Becoming Accepted: This year for the first time in memory I noticed a preponderance of grey hairs and the careful gait of partners scoping out potential buys for their offices.  This was not the brash, flash-in-the-pan TechShow of the late-90’s in which the Internet was decried as a fad.

SaaS, Saas, and more Saas: Software as a service was all over the place, and by next year it will be pervasive. This year I was knocked out by the number and variety of kick-ass SaaS providers at the show including Clio, RocketMatter, and VLO Tech. Clio was my hands-down favorite for a number of reasons – I intend to use it in my own practice. Whatever your cup of tea, the idea of throwing away the IT department in favor of the Cloud is gaining traction fast.

Less is … Less: One lamentable fact about this  year’s show – there was less of it than I’ve seen in a long time. Another casualty of the economy I’d say, but we shouldn’t overlook the fact that many legal technology vendors have been slaves to profit instead of boosters for innovation and the slow economy is making it painfully apparent what a royal screw job they’ve been giving lawyers all these years. Many players couldn’t make it ? Good riddance to bad company.

Other than that however, it was a great experience as always and one that I heartily recommend to one and all. If you haven’t been to TechShow, go there. If you have, come back. A splendid time is guaranteed for all.

For more coverage see my SmallLaw Column in TechnoLawyer.

Check out Twitter coverage of TechShow.

As always, I’d love your thoughts. E-mail me at mhedayat[at]mha-law.com or tweet me @practichacker.

ttyl 🙂

PA Court learns to Twitter … will others follow suit?

Law.com published this piece on a Pennsylvania Court microblogging (i.e. twittering) with participants about its ‘fugitive safe surrender’ program. With successful results all around, the Court has since begun posting status updates (‘tweeting’) and thus far has nearly 20 followers … a number that will explode as attorneys, clerks, paraprofessionals, court reporters, and members of Sheriff, Police, and Fire departments wake up to the potential for twitter and its ilk to speed up communications beyond recognition. – MH

Penn. Courts ‘Tweet’ on Micro-Blogging Site

Amaris Elliott-Engel, The Legal Intelligencer [Oct 22, 2008]

… [T]he 1st Judicial District has been brisk about getting onto Twitter, an online service that allows users to send brief updates about their activities to other users. When the FJD and other partners held the fugitive safe surrender program Sept. 17 to 20, the FJD sent out updates about the safe surrender program via Twitter to 10 of its volunteers who don’t have BlackBerrys and were unable to receive e-mail updates remotely. But because most people have cell phones, that group of 10 was able to receive updates on their cell phones via Twitter…

… [U]sers can receive Twitter updates on the Web site … by text messages on their cell phones … via e-mail and other Web applications.

The court decided after the safe surrender program wrapped up to see if the bar would be interested in following the court on Twitter … [r[ight now the court is only sending out Twitter updates, or “tweets,” that are also posted on the FJD’s “News and Announcements” section on the Web site.

As of last week, 18 people were following the court on Twitter

Monthly Installment from Cybercontrols

Cybercontrols

Cybercontrols

Drive-By Rule 16 Conferences

Over the past year, CyberControls has shared its perspective on the importance for all commercial litigators to develop a heightened awareness and mastery in preparing for the inevitable challenges associated with electronically stored information (ESI) in their cases. Whether you represent the producing party or requesting party, the vast majority of e-discovery related disasters are easily traced back to inadequate pretrial planning, preparation and effective communication with the client and opposition.

With so much being written about the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the past eighteen months, is it any wonder why the level of e-discovery disputes in courts is on the rise? In the June issue, Law.com posted an article “E-Discovery From The Bench,” by Jason Krause, which is a well researched collection of comments from a wide array of jurists weighing in on all aspects of electronic discovery, such as:

“You see a lot of wasted opportunities in many cases coming out of the Rule 26 meet and confer and the Rule 16 conference with the court,” says Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “In many cases lawyers treat the Rule 26 conference like a drive-by conference and there is no meaningful attempt to address these issues.”

Mr. Krause’s article goes on with . . . Judges say the No. 1 problem is that lawyers come to the Rule 16 meeting without having learned anything about the electronic records that will be in dispute in many cases. “You can’t come to the judge and just say ‘I don’t know.’ The fact is you need to know what you don’t know,” says Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm of the U.S. District Court for Maryland. “But more than that, you have to know what is reasonable to ask for. You can’t come to the judge and ask for everything and a pony.”

CyberControls is not a law firm. We are experienced specialists in the in the field of electronic discovery and production, computer forensics and the integration of computer technology and the rules of discovery. Our professional services teams are comprised of pretrial litigation consultants and field technicians and forensic experts. CyberControls’ expertise in computer forensics and investigative experience has proven to be an invaluable resource to hundreds of legal professionals across the country.

CyberControls welcomes the opportunity to discuss any specific issues that you may be facing as a respondent or requesting party in a commercial litigation matter at 847-756-4890 or visit our cyber site at www.cybercontrols.net.

Tags: e-discovery,electronic discovery,cybercontrols,computer,forensic,FRCP,Rule 16,Federal Rules of Evidence

Share this post :

This Month’s Installment from Cybercontrols

As state and the federal courts continue to weigh in on the infinite possibilities surrounding electronic discovery, the universe of electronically stored information (ESI) demands to be defined. A producing party’s duty to preserve relevant evidence is not the issue. The confusion comes from what types of ESI do these preservation obligations refer to? From a requesting party’s perspective, is there any doubt that relevant evidence pertaining to their case may well go beyond the boundaries of certain documents and e-mail communications? As you read through the recent preservation of evidence order below, you will see just how extensive the universe of ESI preservation can be.

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division.

In re FLASH MEMORY ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

No. C-07-00086-SBA. April 22, 2008.

Joseph Cotchett, Steven Williams, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Burlingame, CA, for the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.

ORDER REGARDING PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge

 

*1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

All parties and their counsel are reminded of their duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to this action. The duty extends to documents, data, and tangible things in the possession, custody and control of the parties to this action, and any employees, agents, contractors, carriers, bailees, or other non-parties who possess materials reasonably anticipated to be subject to discovery in this action. “Documents, data, and tangible things” shall be interpreted broadly to include writings, records, files, correspondence, reports, memoranda, calendars, diaries, minutes, electronic messages, voice mail, E-mail, telephone message records or logs, computer and network activity logs, hard drives, backup data, removable computer storage media such as tapes, discs and cards, printouts, document image files, Web pages, databases, spreadsheets, software, books, ledgers, journals, orders, invoices, bills, vouchers, check statements, worksheets, summaries, compilations, computations, charts, diagrams, graphic presentations, drawings, films, charts, digital or chemical process photographs, video, phonographic, tape or digital recordings or transcripts thereof, drafts, jottings and notes, studies or drafts of studies or other similar such material. Information that serves to identify, locate, or link such material, such as file inventories, file folders, indices, and metadata, is also included in this definition. Until the parties reach an agreement on a preservation plan or the Court orders otherwise, each party shall take reasonable steps to preserve all documents, data, and tangible things containing information potentially relevant to the subject mater of this litigation. In addition, counsel shall exercise all reasonable efforts to identify and notify parties and non-parties of their duties, including employees of corporate or institutional parties, to the extent required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *Slip Copy, 2008 WL 1831668 (N.D.Cal.)

 

CyberControls is not a law firm. We are experienced specialists in the in the field of electronic discovery and production, computer forensics and the integration of computer technology and the rules of discovery. Call 847-756-4890 or visit www.cybercontrols.net.

ND IL ED – transcripts available online

As of June 2008 transcripts of court proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois will be available on the PACER system on the following schedule

IF 90-days or less has passed since the transcript was ordered

THEN only the party that ordered that transcript may view it

IF 90-days or more has passed since the transcript was ordered

THEN any PACER user may view the transcript

Attorneys bear the responsibility for identifying personal information that might need to be redacted from the transcript, and for providing the court reporter with notice of same. The court reporter is responsible to follow up on those instructions. The fee cap of $2.40 will not apply to transcripts viewed on the PACER system. For more information see Policy Regarding Availability of Court Proceedings or the Court’s website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov