As the one year anniversary of the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) approaches, Kroll Ontrack, a provider of electronic discovery and computer forensics services, announced a breakdown of the reported electronic discovery opinions from 2007 as well as a list of the year's top five most significant discovery cases.
How do the amendments to the federal rules change the way attorneys practice law?
Litigation, especially when e-discovery is involved, can be a very costly endeavor. Faced with these costs, clients are often forced to settle a case they feel they could win, since it doesn't make financial sense to proceed. This results in a loss of business for law firms and a lack of justice for the parties involved. Yet it doesn't have to be that way.
Even companies that truly want to fulfill their e-discovery obligations properly are struggling to figure out exactly how to get the job done. Indeed, in recent months, the topic of e-discovery "search" has taken center stage. Traditional approaches to sifting through large collections of data for relevant or privileged information, such as keyword and Boolean search, are being called into question by some members of the bar, the bench, and the industry at large.
When done correctly, in-house e-discovery offers numerous advantages: cost-savings, more control, and the opportunity to provide better client services.
An ethics opinion from the American Bar Association has set standards for attorneys confronted with the dangerous and controversial issue of metadata included in electronic documents. According to the ABA, attorneys may search for and use information contained in metadata, even if the documents originated with opposing counsel.
The "Meet and Confer" is one area in which many litigants still struggle to comply with the FRCP and judges' expectations. With the right attitude, the right information and the right technology and processes, litigants can have a successful Meet and Confer that will help counsel on both sides lower risk and improve litigation workflow from suit to settlement or court.
By now, practically everyone even remotely involved in litigation in the United States knows that discovery of electronic information, E-Discovery, has become a very big deal, especially in light of related amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enacted more than a year ago.
As shown in our last column, software commonly used by lawyers often creates embedded data, otherwise known as metadata. As previously discussed, there are means to avoid creating embedded data, as well as means available to remove hidden data already created. In theory, at least, it is possible to remove all metadata prior to sending a document to opposing counsel.
Learn how to integrate technology assisted review (also known as TAR or predictive coding) as a part of a routine e-discovery process.