In litigation, allowing a client to handle the process of collecting its electronic discovery without adequate attorney oversight of quality control validation can lead to serious trouble for all concerned. Courts throughout the country have repeatedly held that attorneys have professional and ethical duties to ensure the adequacy of their clients’ actions in identifying, preserving

Discovery protocols governing the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in litigation (“ESI Protocols”) can be invaluable.  Rather than execute a formulaic ESI Protocol, counsel should familiarize themselves with their clients’ ESI practices, anticipate issues that may arise during discovery, and agree, in their protocol, on how to address those issues.  By charting a course

A 2022 case out of the Southern District of New York discussed the affirmative discovery obligations imposed upon parties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34 when conducting electronically stored information (ESI) searches and determining the identities of custodians and locations of relevant documents or information. Specifically, the court observed that any agreement

Modern day litigation involves an ever-increasing volume of data. In turn, the ubiquitous nature of data has caused significant financial strains on legal teams. Because of the financial concerns attendant to eDiscovery, it is imperative that today’s legal teams are conversant in defensible strategies to control legal costs without compromising the ability to understand their

In an earlier post, we discussed how District Court Judge Iain Johnston noted that “at times, ESI discovery can be complex,” but the “same basic discovery principles that worked for the Flintstones still work for the Jetsons.” Indeed, ESI discovery, just like its paper predecessor, involves five fundamental steps: (1) identification, (2) preservation, (3)