KT LitSmart

ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.

In Part One of this blog series, I discuss a case that makes clear the importance of complying with discovery obligations. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available” and ordered Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice. Indeed, although the old adage dictates that to the victor go the spoils, there are no spoils and no victory for one who engages in spoliation. 

A lawsuit has been filed. Both parties have met and negotiated an ESI Protocol that has been formalized as a court order. Your review team has started the initial review and notices there are numerous duplicates. When this is brought to your attention, you discuss with your litigation support team and they suggest de-duplication and email threading as options. Which of the following would steps would be appropriate? In this blog, we'll dive into the next steps in this scenario and the importance of having an ESI Protocol in place.

Assigning a single unique name to identify an individual has created problems that precede the inception of e-discovery. Think of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, St. Nick, Noel or simply Santa. These variations are associated with a unique individual and yet, our society has been using different names to refer to him since before we were born. In e-discovery, identifying individuals with information relevant to a dispute is one of the first and most important steps we go through at the inception of a case. As such, the identification of the different names for these individuals is critical to ensuring we do not miss potentially relevant files. 

Depo packs serve two purposes: (1) to help prepare your client’s witnesses and experts for their depositions by refreshing their recollection of specific events or communications and focusing their attention on issues that are central to the factual story and legal strategy; and (2) to assist the trial attorneys in preparing to depose the other side’s witnesses or defend their own witnesses. This blog provides an overview of depo packs and how they can be a tremendous benefit to the client as well as an effective tool for the attorneys deposing or defending depositions. 

It’s a Friday afternoon and your weekend is about to start…and yes - you guessed it…a last minute production request comes in and your plans are no longer the same. Like many other e-discovery professionals, I’ve been in this position too many times to count. To ensure that I remember all of the various conditions that should be considered and checked and double-checked in preparing productions, I recommend using a checklist to make sure you are top of all of it!