Because a key part of litigation is the discovery process, we have included articles this month about cutting discovery costs, correcting deposition transcripts under the Federal Rules, and preparing a meet and confer letter.
We will continue to provide you with useful discovery information and tools because we take a genuine interest in the legal community beyond just court reporting.
To help us continue to provide information of interest, please email us and let us know what topics and subject matter you would like to read and/or learn more about. We want to provide you only with the information that you find valuable, and your input will make sure we are serving you in the best possible way.
Reduce E-Discovery Storage Costs through Nearlining
By Michele Lange
Nearline. If this term isn’t in your ediscovery vocabulary, it should be.
Nearlining is a feature that allows litigation teams to quickly and easily set aside irrelevant documents and keep them separate from the active document roster in a discovery database. By moving noncritical data from active to nearline in a document review tool, databases remain nimble, and hosting costs are reduced, as nearline storage is less expensive.
Nearlining Promotes Speed
Ediscovery can move slowly at times, and most litigation teams are aware of the cost and time needed to effectively gather and isolate relevant documents in the ediscovery process. As such, they are eager to begin the process of reviewing (or at least compiling) documents sooner rather than later. Kroll Ontrack’s nearlining function allows those involved in the process to do just that, as described in a recent ediscovery.com Review case study. Documents can be added to the pool early on, regardless of whether search terms have been determined. This allows litigation teams to collect broadly at the start and then hone in on relevant documents later, without adding increased costs.
Technology Competence for Lawyers: An Ethical Mandate
By Shelley Podolny
Acquire it or hire it, technology competence is an increasing focus for the bar.
In its December 2014 newsletter, the Technology Committee of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) published “The Ethics of Technology in E-Discovery – An Introduction,” in which the authors, Julia Brickell and Peter Pizzi, explore the rules changes and ethics opinions recently issued by various bar associations around the country to make explicit the notion that technological skills may bear upon the ability of a lawyer to represent clients competently and ethically.
The article, which you can access here, addresses in particular changes to 1) Rule 1.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct; 2) the State Bar of California’s Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-00004; and 3) Rule 202.12(b) of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court in New York, changes from which one can infer that a lack of technological savvy may render an attorney ethically incompetent to handle certain litigation matters unless the attorney aligns with appropriate external expertise.