Nestled into a small conference room on the third floor of the Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel in the Union Square district of San Francisco, a gathering of about 50 in-house counsel attended “The Legal and Strategic Guide to E-Discovery” conference. The conference, which business-information provider Marcus Evans hosted, brought together GCs and senior-level in-house counsel from across the country to discuss e-discovery complexities and solutions. Participating companies included Halliburton, Toshiba and Fox Group.

The two-day event, held March 28 and 29, covered multiple facets of the e-discovery quagmire. Topics included pre-planning steps to help facilitate the e-discovery process, privacy issues and cost-reduction methods.

Yet drawing the biggest crowd was a Q&A session with a four-judge panel. U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California James Larson and U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas David J. Waxse fielded questions about their interpretations of the laws regarding e-discovery and their opinions on best practices for corporate counsel.

Responding to a question about whether corporate counsel are wrong to feel that e-discovery presents a huge burden to the legal community, one of the judges compared these fears to those of the turn-of-the-century Y2K hoopla. Reassuring the audience, he stated that he feels little differs between the laws regarding paper document discovery and those regarding e-discovery. However, another panelist disagreed, citing that the volume of documents involved in e-discovery presents a major hurdle during litigation.

With regards to how to present e-discovery issues in court, one of the judges suggested letting an IT or computer forensics person speak rather than an attorney. Despite the intelligence and experience of many lawyers, they can't compare to the technologists when it comes to explaining issues of technology, he said.

Nestled into a small conference room on the third floor of the Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel in the Union Square district of San Francisco, a gathering of about 50 in-house counsel attended “The Legal and Strategic Guide to E-Discovery” conference. The conference, which business-information provider Marcus Evans hosted, brought together GCs and senior-level in-house counsel from across the country to discuss e-discovery complexities and solutions. Participating companies included Halliburton, Toshiba and Fox Group.

The two-day event, held March 28 and 29, covered multiple facets of the e-discovery quagmire. Topics included pre-planning steps to help facilitate the e-discovery process, privacy issues and cost-reduction methods.

Yet drawing the biggest crowd was a Q&A session with a four-judge panel. U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California James Larson and U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Kansas David J. Waxse fielded questions about their interpretations of the laws regarding e-discovery and their opinions on best practices for corporate counsel.

Responding to a question about whether corporate counsel are wrong to feel that e-discovery presents a huge burden to the legal community, one of the judges compared these fears to those of the turn-of-the-century Y2K hoopla. Reassuring the audience, he stated that he feels little differs between the laws regarding paper document discovery and those regarding e-discovery. However, another panelist disagreed, citing that the volume of documents involved in e-discovery presents a major hurdle during litigation.

With regards to how to present e-discovery issues in court, one of the judges suggested letting an IT or computer forensics person speak rather than an attorney. Despite the intelligence and experience of many lawyers, they can't compare to the technologists when it comes to explaining issues of technology, he said.