What Remains of E-Discovery: Expertise With E-Discovery and Its Tools
The thesis of the article is not that e-discovery has somehow evaporated, but rather that the thinking in the legal world regarding e-discovery has so changed that, as with many other ideas (and the tools that helped those ideas to flourish) that were once novel—that communications could travel thousands of miles over telephone lines.
November 24, 2021 at 11:24 AM
10 minute read
Introduction
I must begin this month's article with an apology, specifically for this article's confusing title. I have to believe that virtually every reader of this article must be confused and wonder why I am writing as if e-discovery has disappeared. I well understand the confusion. The thesis of the article is not that e-discovery has somehow evaporated, but rather that the thinking in the legal world regarding e-discovery has so changed that, as with many other ideas (and the tools that helped those ideas to flourish) that were once novel—that communications could travel thousands of miles over telephone lines, for example—those ideas and tools lost their novelty as those in the legal community became comfortable with them and thought of them as simply different ways of articulating ideas and tools long used in the legal world.
Over Time, the New and Unusual Becomes the Quotidian
The legal world is still populated mostly by baby boomers (born 1946-1964) and Generation Xers (born 1965-1980). Given that the oldest boomer would be 75 today, it is easy to see that the boomers and Gen Xers are shrinking over time, that the youngest within the groups and those in other groups make up those in the legal world who actually run things, and that in not that many years boomers and Gen Xers will have all but disappeared from the legal world.
It is also easy to see that computers joined the legal world with boomers and Gen Xers. Computers had been invented before 1970 (the first year a boomer law student could move through grade school, high school, college and law school without starting early or skipping anything and become a lawyer), but those computers were too expensive, they lacked storage space and didn't have applications and model documents lawyers would need to do business. As well, all of the issues just listed held true for all but a handful of very large companies, meaning that businesses were not generating the digital documents collected in e-discovery. For these reasons, computers may have existed but were nowhere close to common and certainly were not part of everyday discussions, e.g., "I'll send you an email," "I looked that up online yesterday," etc. By 1990, computers and their operating systems and applications were standardized enough for lawyers to imagine copying data in digital form, as opposed to printing data to paper, and by the end of the 1990s, when boomers were 26 to 54 years old, digital forensics and e-discovery were standard in the legal workplace, as well as in workplaces and homes everywhere.
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 AllWhether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
5 minute readKirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
5 minute readThe Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Charlie Javice Fraud Trial Delayed as Judge Denies Motion to Sever
- 2Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
- 3With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Attorneys See Potential for Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 4Trump Signs Executive Order Creating Strategic Digital Asset Reserve
- 5St. Jude Labs Sued for $14.3M for Allegedly Falling Short of Purchase Expectations
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