E-discovery: Know thy IT department
By now, we all know that e-discovery can be expensive, time consuming and disruptive. But it can also deliver a treasure trove of important information.
October 30, 2012 at 04:15 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
By now, we all know that e-discovery can be expensive, time consuming and disruptive. But it can also deliver a treasure trove of important information. Of course, we also know that e-discovery is a two-edged sword. Although it is relatively easy to seek relevant email information from the opponent, it is often difficult to have to produce the same. And when discovery requests are overly broad, the amount of information produced may be so large that it hinders rather than advances true discovery.
So what can counsel do to most effectively respond to e-discovery requests?
- Know your company's IT systems and procedures inside and out
- Become best friends with the personnel involved with those systems and procedures
- Learn the language of your company's IT department (for example, the difference between WAN, LAN and VPN)
- Understand how your company maintains and backs up electronic information, as well as how the company stores, acquires and archives it.
As counsel you must be able to speak intelligently with the IT staff. If you can do so easily, you can develop a good, working relationship with IT and everything in connection with e-discovery will work much more smoothly.
Another benefit to understanding your company's technical systems and procedures is that it will be much easier for you to argue proportionality and describe what it takes to produce electronic information when responding to e-discovery requests. Any counsel can claim that producing certain e-discovery information is unduly burdensome and too expensive for the issues involved in a case. But to be able to say why, and to say it persuasively, is a huge benefit. This knowledge will also help you point out to the court why particular information may be irrelevant or privileged.
The importance of knowing your company's IT systems and procedures cannot be overstated. It can be virtually impossible to respond properly to e-discovery requests without it. Armed with the necessary information you should be able to navigate the tricky waters of e-discovery safely and effectively.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute readLongtime Purdue GC Accused of Drunken Driving Hires Big-Name Defense Attorney
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 2‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 3LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
- 4Delaware Supreme Court Agrees Insurance Dispute Can Be Retried
- 5New Strategies For Estate, Legacy Planning
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250