The Film

Written and directed by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, an actress, filmmaker, speaker and women’s advocate, the film exposes the under-representation of women in positions of power in America, specifically focusing on the role of mainstream media’s limited, and sometimes negative, portrayal of women of power.  The film offers stories from teenage girls and highlights interviews with women of power in various industries.  Facts and statistics regarding the great strides women have made over the past few decades are presented by powerful women such as Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, and others.

Building Confidence

The goal of the fundraiser is to help women of all ages build confidence and feel empowered to achieve goals in a male dominated industry.  As women in e-discovery understand, empowering women is crucial in these types of industries.  With a focus on education, goal setting and mentoring, Miss Representation offers insight into what women have achieved and what is possible to achieve given the right support and background.  The film strives to prove that a woman’s worth is not limited to her youth, beauty and sexuality, but in her capacity to lead—politically, professionally and personally.

Mentoring

Female mentors are vital to promoting women in e-discovery as they offer advice, encouragement or simply moral support to those who may be entering the industry for the first time.  Mentors provide insight into balancing work and family life, social obligations and methods for reaching higher levels in an industry that is predominantly male.

Advanced Discovery is proud to sponsor a screening of the film Miss Representation in an effort to raise funds to further the advancement of women in e-discovery.  For more information on the screening, visit www.advanceddiscovery.com.

Agreement on Format of Production

One e-discovery guideline that can help parties fall in line with judicial expectations of cooperation in electronic discovery cases is for counsel to agree on the format of ESI productions.  When submitting discovery requests, it is crucial to clearly state the desired format and specs for production.  This simple step can eliminate ambiguity and help the parties avoid unnecessary costs.  When the parties cannot agree on production format and/or specs, counsel can request judicial intervention early in discovery instead of waiting until costs have been incurred by production in disputed format.

Steps for Producing ESI

Organizations implementing e-discovery guidelines should consider the standard workflow they’ll follow when producing electronic information; the following are six steps that might be included:

1. Search and Collect ESI
2. Reduce volume through culling
3. Eliminate duplicates and render ESI searchable
4. Initial Review
5. Counsel review
6. Production

Protect Data

Some methods for collecting electronic information can alter, damage, or destroy the data.  For this reason, litigants should balance the cost savings of self-collection against the risk of damage as an e-discovery guideline.  Inadvertent alterations or damage could result in sanctions issued by the courts if reasonable steps to prevent the damage weren’t taken.

Technology

Litigants typically use technology to search for relevant ESI.  In most cases, the search need only be performed on active data that is located on reasonably accessible sources.  However, there may be cases where less readily accessible sources need to be searched for relevant information.  One e-discovery guideline to follow is to preserve potentially relevant information located on inaccessible sources until opposing parties have had an opportunity to inspect.  Also, document the steps taken while conducting searches in order to demonstrate that the search method was reasonable.

Whenever possible, agreement between counsel should be reached regarding the scope of searches as well as the search terms to be employed.

Advanced Discovery, a premier e-discovery company, offers support and advice to parties involved in litigation to help them avoid some of the pitfalls that can lead to sanctions.  Comments on these guidelines are encouraged.  For more information on e-discovery guidelines or to learn more about our services, fill out the form below.

Collaboration

Courts have consistently indicated that they expect more cooperation and collaboration between litigants regarding e-discovery.  Recent recommendations for changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly indicate that e-discovery guidelines should include a thorough discussion to outline electronic discovery expectations when the parties to litigation “meet and confer.”

Counsel-Client Knowledge

One important e-discovery guideline is that counsel should become familiar with client information technology and retention policies as soon as litigation is anticipated.  Knowledge of the client’s information technology and ESI sources is important for initiating the preservation process.  Understanding the scope and expected format of production is also important.  Courts are expecting counsel to have this information available and ready to discuss at the preliminary conference between parties.

Clearly Identified Requests

Requests for production of electronic information should identify the types of information sought and the date range that applies to the discovery.  Another e-discovery guideline to follow is to clearly state the underlying subject matter of the request.  Counsel should avoid boilerplate language, which may make the request unclear.  In objections to any e-discovery request, counsel should identify the scope and limitations of responding to the request in clear, concise language.

Judges are increasingly demanding that litigants make better use of the “meet and confer” conference in an effort to promote cooperation and collaboration in e-discovery.  Many litigants find it beneficial to have their e-discovery vendor attend the “meet and confer” in order to further the discussion.  Advanced Discovery, in this series of e-discovery guidelines, offers suggestions for avoiding sanctions during litigation.  Comments regarding these guidelines are welcome and encouraged.  For more information about e-discovery guidelines, visit www.advancediscovery.com.

The program this year will prominently feature the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s 2012 “Roadshow” Symposium, including individual and panel presentations by USPTO representatives Remy Yucel, Group Director in Technology Center 1600, and Jean Witz, Quality Assurance Specialist in Technology Center 1600. The presentation is expected to focus on such “hot topics” as the recently- enacted America Invents Act, the new post-grant review and opposition procedures, accelerated examination procedures, third-party participation in patent examination, and the USPTO’s application of recent Supreme Court precedent in the patent area.

Let us know if you will be attending or not in the comments below, and of course, we will be live tweeting, so follow us on Twitter to get all of the details at @AdvDiscovery!

Pre-Litigation Preservation

One of the first e-discovery guidelines to address in litigation is what duty a party has to preserve electronic documents.  The duty to preserve documents often starts before receiving formal notice of litigation.  In fact, litigants should begin the preservation process as soon as theycan reasonably anticipate litigation.

What Should Be Preserved

Determining what ESI must be preserved requires the examination of several factors.  Parties  need to consider the facts and subject matter of the litigation when deciding what information may be discoverable.  Any ESI that is relevant to the claims or defenses in the litigation should be preserved.  E-discovery guidelines suggest that even where certain sources of ESI may not require production, litigants should carefully consider whether there might still be a duty to preserve – especially if it’s the only source  of any relevant information.  In addition, it is important to consider systems that routinely overwrite or delete ESI, and to modify those systems if necessary for preservation.

Legal Hold Notices

When it comes to legal hold notices, e-discovery guidelines dictate that they should be in writing, concise and clear.  Although the notices will vary based on the facts of the case, they should include a description of the subject matter of the dispute, and date ranges for locating relevant information.  It is important to include a statement that custodians should preserve any potentially relevant ESI, regardless of the location or storage medium used.  Regular compliance monitoring is also crucial.

As the use of technology increases in the business world, the more important it is to understand e-discovery guidelines and best practices.  By understanding and following a few basic guidelines, parties can reduce the likelihood of sanctions due to missteps in e-discovery.  Comments and suggestions regarding these, or other, guidelines are welcome.  For more information on e-discovery guidelines, visit www.advanceddiscovery.com.

Preservation

The first part of the series deals with preservation requirements. E-discovery consulting firms can work with clients to determine what electronically stored information (ESI) falls under the duty to preserve. Because the law is not definitive as to what should be preserved for each individual case, using an e-discovery company to help identify ESI for preservation, even before litigation commences, can be crucial to avoiding sanctions. Part 1 of the series will also address legal hold notices and how to monitor the ongoing preservation of ESI.

Cooperation

One of the key necessities recommended by e-discovery consulting firms is for collaboration between parties. Judges are increasingly insistent that all parties to the litigation work together to determine which ESI should fall under discovery, and are growing less patient with litigants who use e-discovery as a “fishing expedition.” In Part 2 of the series, guidelines for effective cooperation and collaboration are discussed in an effort to more easily (and cost effectively) comply with e-discovery rules.

Form and Type of Production

Part 3 of the series addresses the format of ESI production, steps to consider when processing, use of technology to identify potentially relevant ESI and avoiding alteration or destruction of data during the process. E-discovery consulting firms that track chain of custody should be able to certify data integrity and provide information in the formats necessary to meet the demands of the requesting party.

Cost Containment

Another aspect of e-discovery that judges are increasingly speaking out on is cost. For this reason, judges in certain jurisdictions are demanding that litigants limit their e-discovery requests so as not to expose the producing party to exorbitant costs. All parties should discuss discovery of ESI as early in the case as possible, to successfully target the most relevant data and reduce costs. Part 4 of the series also addresses conducting searches to isolate ESI that is potentially attorney-client privileged or otherwise protected.

This series, developed by Advanced Discovery as a premier e-discovery consulting firm, offers insight and information for those who are already facing litigation or who anticipate a litigated matter in the future. Comments are encouraged throughout the series.  If you have suggestions for guidelines or remarks regarding these topics, please leave your comment below.  For more information on e-discovery consulting, visit www.advanceddiscovery.com.

LegalTech® New York 2012 is the largest and most important legal technology event of the year. LegalTech® provides an in-depth look at what the technological world has in store for you and your practice AND offers an expansive exhibit floor with the most extensive gathering of innovative products designed to meet your current and future technology needs.

Stop by the Advanced Discovery booth at #1718 and we will showcase the following:

• 10 Minute Demos of FirstLook, an easy-to-use interface for searching and analyzing evidentiary data, providing a cost-effective single platform for early case assessment, predictive analytics, linear review, production and online repository.
• You may sign up for a longer one-on-one Demo of FirstLook
• Use Advanced Discovery’s Cost Comparison Calculator, an online estimation tool designed to help law firms, corporations, and governmental agencies estimate, compare, and evaluate the monetary costs associated with electronic discovery, including the use of iterative technologies and also encompassing attorney review costs.
• Enter to win an iPad or Laptop in our Social Media Sweepstakes
• An extra prize with our Treasure Hunt to win an EXTRA iPad
• And more fun!

Don’t miss us this year at LegalTech New York 2012! We can’t wait to see you there and talk more about our services with you!  Are you attending LegalTech in New York this year? Let us know in the comments below!

Mountain View, Calif. (PRWEB) January 12, 2012

Advanced Discovery, a leading e-discovery company that provides investigative and litigation services for corporations and law firms worldwide, is pleased to announce a webinar highlightingFirstLook, an accurate and cost-effective Early Case Assessment and Analysis Workflow Module.

Commercial Litigation Attorneys, Litigation Support Managers, and Corporate Counsel are invited to join in this exciting webinar. Brian Kawasaki, executive vice president for Advanced Discovery, will conduct the webinar. Brian is also a Relativity® Certified Administrator and workflow design expert.

“FirstLook provides our clients a reliable workflow to analyze their data quickly and in a cost-effective manner,” Kawasaki said. FirstLook provides less data to review, faster review speeds, and is cost-effective. These technologies include concept clustering, email threading and near duplicate detection all within one application, Relativity®.

To register for a webinar on the following dates, please visit: http://firstlook-advanceddiscovery.eventbrite.com/

• Monday, January 23 at 10 AM PST
• Wednesday, January 25 at 10 AM PST
• Monday, February 13 at 10 AM PST
• Wednesday, February at 15 10 AM PST

Advanced Discovery is firmly committed to delivering quality products and services. This webinar will introduce yet another product from Advanced Discovery’s repertoire of superior technology offerings.

For helpful tips about data management and other e-discovery information, please visit: http://www.advanceddiscovery.com

ABOUT ADVANCED DISCOVERY

Advanced Discovery is a leading e-discovery company providing services to clients worldwide in both the legal and corporate communities. Our services include computer forensics, electronic discovery, early case assessment, web hosting, document review, and paper discovery. Advanced Discovery offers technology solutions that assist law firms and corporations to quickly and accurately reduce vast amounts of electronically stored information into essential and searchable data sets effectively providing a high value product at a low comparative cost. Headquartered inMountain View, Calif., Advanced Discovery also maintains locations in San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Chicago, and Overland Park, Kans. More information is available at http://www.advanceddiscovery.com.

###

Glenda Hoffman, Marketing Director
Advanced Discovery
714.556.2679
Email Information

Limit Fishing Expeditions

One consistent struggle in discovery, as seen from the bench, is the use of email requests in discovery as a “fishing expedition.” This often leads to immense and unnecessary amounts of ESI being requested/provided, the majority of which are never later entered as exhibits in the courtroom. Because there have been times when a party’s broad electronic discovery requests have revealed a “smoking gun,” many litigants continue to request and receive extensive numbers of documents using processes like running key word search terms across a company’s entire email archive. The model limits parties requesting email data to only five custodians and five search terms per custodian, although the model does allow litigants to mutually agree on higher numbers (an additional five of each) and with court approval. If a party requests data that exceeds these limitations without such a court order (and the approval of the adverse parties), the requesting party will bear the cost of providing the extraneous discovery requested.

Target the Data being Requested

Another element that the model addresses is what data the parties may request from each other. Discovery requests for ESI under this model must show “good cause” for requesting metadata, in addition to focusing requests only on the specific issues. Although this appears to limit the information the requesting party will receive, more relevant information will be provided as a result and costs for both sides will be reduced.

Timing of Requests for Email

Requests for email in discovery have routinely been costly and time consuming in review. The model states that email may only be requested after both parties have disclosed information about the patent(s), such as the accused uses of the invention, relevant financial information, published information about the subject matter of the claimed invention, basic documentation regarding the patent and other information.

Waiver of Privilege

The model also addresses inadvertent production of privileged ESI, stating that the attorney-client privilege (or other protection) is not waived by disclosure and the receiving party is barred from using it, in the hopes that overly-extensive privilege reviews will become unnecessary.

Although the model order currently addresses only patent cases, some industry insiders believe that iterations of the model will be adopted in other jurisdictions and for other kinds of litigation. This makes retaining an experienced e-discovery company even more important than ever. For more information on electronic discovery, visit www.advanceddiscovery.com.

New Technology

Businesses are looking at technology as another e-discovery trend.  Predictive coding, computer-aided review, and automated data classification are just a few of the technology advances that firms are now using to aid in e-discovery and this trend is expected to continue into the next year.

People and Technology

As budgets tightened during the recent economic crisis, some firms began to ignore the human aspect of e-discovery.  But many found that computer programs only increased the manual processes necessary to collect, review and produce electronic documents.  New technology is combining human expertise and judgment with the intelligent application of computers in an effort to reduce the manual processes necessary in e-discovery.  This is a new e-discovery trend that is expected to gain popularity in the upcoming year.

Development of Best Practices

Another e-discovery trend that is expected to increase in the upcoming year is the development of practices that result in a more proactive approach to electronic discovery.  Firms will identify stakeholders, plan status meetings and create more standardization earlier in the process in an effort to address the e-discovery requirements of litigation.

More Focus on Rules

Courts are taking a more aggressive stance when it comes to e-discovery.  This is requiring litigants to focus on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure early in litigation.  In fact, one e-discovery trend that was previously unheard of in litigation was inviting regulators and legislative authorities to attend initial meetings between parties, but that is no longer the case.  In an effort to better meet e-discovery requirements, litigants are looking closely at further clarification and understanding of electronic discovery rules and regulations.

Outcome of Congressional Hearing

It remains to be seen what the outcome will be from the recent Congressional hearings on e-discovery policy.  Whether Congress will issue amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that lead to a new e-discovery trend is still a question, but any amendments to regulations will certainly affect e-discovery in the future.

The main theme of e-discovery trends for the upcoming year is that more companies will take a more proactive view of e-discovery issues and policies.  To stay up-to-date on e-discovery trends, or if you have a question about an upcoming case, please call Advanced Discovery at (866)560-5898 or visit the Contact Us section of our website.