By Scott A. Wandstrat and Matthew T. Covell | March 24, 2015
Don't wait until after you've been sued to think about e-discovery.
By Sean Doherty | March 23, 2015
Altitude IG for info governance now supports e-discovery collection and production.
By Sean Doherty | March 23, 2015
Appellate court finds imaging a hard drive falls "squarely within the definition of copy."
Delaware Business Court Insider
By Gareth Evans | March 17, 2015
In imposing strict evidentiary and monetary sanctions for a party's repeated failure to produce requested electronically stored information, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently observed that counsel's "professed technological incompetence is not an excuse for discovery misconduct."
By almstaff | March 16, 2015
CEO of Venio Systems advises that software providers bake-in security options and foster transparency with clients.
By David J. Kessler, Jami Mills Vibbert and Alex Altman | March 16, 2015
David J. Kessler, Jami Mills Vibbert and Alex Altman of Norton Rose Fulbright US write: In the digital age, the bench and bar should recognize that protective orders should be drafted not only to prevent misuse of sensitive information by parties to a litigation, but to reduce the risk of avoidable data breaches committed by nefarious third parties.
By almstaff | March 16, 2015
In this Special Report from the New York Law Journal, brought to you free by : "How Do You Handle 500 Truckloads of Emails?," "Stay Clear of Form Preservation Letters," "Protective Orders in the Age of Hacking," "Move Your Discovery Onto a Smarter Path" and "When Considering TAR, It's Never Too Late."
By Chris O'Reilly and Dan Meyers | March 15, 2015
Chris O'Reilly of LDM Global and Dan Meyers of Bracewell & Giuliani write: Depending on the case, there could be 100,000, 500,000 or one million emails to review in discovery. This may seem like a daunting task, but with the availability of modern technology to gather emails and email threading software to organize them, it need not be.
By Steven M. Amundson and Mark Noel | March 15, 2015
Steven M. Amundson, a partner with Frommer Lawrence & Haug, and Mark Noel, managing director of professional services at Catalyst discuss a case in which, after manually reviewing nearly half the discovery, technology assisted review still produced substantial savings in time and cost.
By Barry Kazan | March 15, 2015
Barry M. Kazan, a partner at Thompson Hine, writes: New ways to achieve efficiency and predictability include how technology is used, different pricing models and different allocations of workflow. While these approaches are not necessarily exclusive, each of them provides certain benefits if used properly.
Presented by BigVoodoo
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Legalweek New York explores Business and Regulatory Trends, Technology and Talent drivers impacting law firms.
McCarter & English is actively seeking a 5th-6th year trademark associate who has trademark prosecution, licensing and litigation experi...
**PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE AD BEFORE APPLYING***Established 25-year boutique Plaintiff's Personal Injury Law Firm in the Dadeland area seeki...
Our client, a multi-state full-service boutique, is seeking to add a senior construction litigation associate to their Florida team. Qualif...