EDI and Duke Law Partner on 'Advanced eDiscovery' Curriculum
The curriculum, aimed at higher-level attorneys and e-discovery practitioners, will feature 10 online modules and in-person instruction at Duke when launched in 2018.
November 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM
4 minute read
In 2016, the non-profit Electronic Discovery Institute (EDI) introduced a program called the Distance Learning Initiative. Aimed at promoting general e-discovery awareness, the initiative focused on providing introductory-level modules for new practitioners at a $1 price point, with a certificate of completion at the end.
But a year into the program, EDI wanted something a bit more in depth, and a partner in exploring that advanced learning. Enter an organization that has placed a lot of emphasis on e-discovery itself in recent days: Duke Law School. On Wednesday, the two announced that they were partnering on an “Advanced eDiscovery” curriculum, aimed at legal and other professionals seeking deep mastery of eDiscovery strategy and best practices in litigation.
The program mixes EDI's online courses with Duke Law's in-person instruction. It will ask enrolled registrants to complete a set of ten online courses, focusing on advanced defendant and plaintiff litigation strategy. At the end of those courses, those in the program will participate in an in-person workshop on Duke Law School's campus, with a Duke Law “Advanced eDiscovery” certificate awarded upon successful completion.
The program is set to begin during 2018, and EDI and Duke Law are still in the process of developing the program curriculum. The two organizations are also in the process of seeking volunteers to help develop this curriculum, as well as be a part of the program's faculty.
According to Patrick Oot, co-founder of EDI and a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, the goal is to build upon the Distance Learning Program, offering more advanced classes for practitioners that already have baseline e-discovery knowledge. Of course, that knowledge will come at a cost. While the Distance Learning program is practically free, the new program will cost “something to the effect of what a CLE would look like,” Oot explained.
But he believes the program will draw interest, particularly given the rarity of this type of instruction in the current marketplace. “Maybe a few law schools have done it, but I haven't heard of it yet. Our goal is really to take it to a separate level than where we're at now,” Oot told LTN.
John Rabiej, director of the Duke Center for Judicial Studies, concurred, saying in a statement, “Electronic discovery has become a mainstay in litigation practice. It constantly evolves, and the bench and bar need continual guidance and education. The Center looks forward to deploying its EDRM expertise and resources in developing with EDI an outstanding discovery curriculum that both new and experienced lawyers will find valuable.”
Oot explained that he and Rabiej have known each other for a while, and when EDI was looking at partners for an advanced curriculum, Duke Law School was a natural fit. He also pointed to Duke's recent integration of EDRM as an example of its commitment to e-discovery education specifically.
Ultimately, he said, talks between the two developed “an idea of putting the credibility of a top-regarded law school with an existing e-discovery organization under its umbrella, through EDRM, partnering with us on a more advanced program where the students would get a substantive credential from an amazing school like Duke Law School.”
A program such as this illustrates the growing, yet still nascent, nature of e-discovery education at many law schools. Alongside Duke, Georgetown Law hosts a widely-known e-discovery conference just wrapping up this week, with University of Florida Law and University of Texas Law among others that have made e-discovery education a priority.
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
© 2024 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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