There is no doubt that our current legal system in severely stressed by electronic data discovery, and in need of repair. Until recently, most law schools ignored the problem; indeed, many seemed oblivious. At best, EDD drew only a passing mention in civil procedure textbooks.
But this is beginning to change. Law schools are awakening to a fact known to all practicing EDD specialists -- that trained graduates are desperately needed. They are beginning to see that they are in a unique position to bridge the EDD knowledge gap, and that this knowledge will provide their students with a competitive advantage (helpful in this harsh economy). Best of all, these classes can be taught at little or no cost.
Pioneer law schools include Georgetown University; Cumberland University; state universities in Florida, Maryland, and Maine; George Mason School of Law, and the University of Miami, among others. But it's time for all law schools to add e-discovery to their curricula.
INFORMATION REVOLUTION
The information revolution -- and the explosion in the volume and complexity of digital evidence -- has stressed both judges and practitioners. According to the 2008 Litigation Survey of the fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers, most respondents said they believe that our civil litigation system is bogged down in a morass of EDD, making it far too expensive to get cases to trial.
The habitual adversarial responses of many lawyers and judges to new EDD demands have been woefully inadequate and often counterproductive.
But there is good news. Independent think tanks have emerged, as well as creative decisions, especially from the federal judiciary, providing much needed guidance. Many bar associations are presenting innovative programs, some firms have launched internal and client-oriented educational programs and created EDD practice centers. Vibrant EDD blogs have emerged, driven in part by vendors in an "EDD land rush" seeking to promote their services.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By William Hamilton & Ralph Losey
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Gone in 90 minutes: Data from 4,000 servers
An ex-Fannie Mae employee has been indicted for attempting to sabotage computer systems at the company by hiding a deadly time bomb into daily start-up scripts. Based on reported news so far, the former employee was motivated by his recent firing due to a unrelated performance issues.
What is chilling about the case is the narrow window of just 90 minutes in which the code changes were inserted, or some hours before access was removed. If not for the chance discovery by another staffer, some 4,000 servers containing millions of files would have their files and backups deleted and thrashed to an extent that each would have to be individually rebuilt. If that's not bad enough, consider the fact that the payload was primed to activate many months later--the ex-employee would, in all likelihood, not have been caught amidst the crippling data loss.
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------
Source: fiercecio.com
The Top Ten Data Protection Issues Facing IT Managers In 2009
This year IT professionals face increasingly complex data protection issues as they grapple with explosive data growth in tandem with drastically reduced budgets and resources.
Zmanda™, the leader in open source backup and recovery software, recently polled leading storage analysts to get their views on the top ten data protection challenges and trends facing companies in 2009. Lauren Whitehouse of Enterprise Strategy Group, David Hill of Mesabi Group, and Jerome Wendt of DCIG offered their thoughts on these key data protection issues:
1. Change — Organizations are experiencing a lot of change — often disruptive to data protection policies, practices and technologies — making it difficult for IT to keep pace. For example, server virtualization has impacted the fundamentals of data protection strategies, requiring re-evaluation and re-architecture of processes.combination of Zmanda’s robust backup solutions with Sun’s innovative OpenSolaris operating system, including the advanced ZFS file system, creates one of the most advanced backup-to-disk offerings available on the market today. Specifically, the snapshot capability of ZFS enables fast and scalable backups of today’s most demanding workloads.
2. Data Growth — Large and growing IT and data storage environments are compounding problems with managing data protection, completing backup or recovery within prescribed windows, and managing the cost of storage systems.
3. Reliability — IT organizations are challenged to improve the reliability of backup and recovery. Typically, the number one concern for any organization is to prevent or minimize the amount of downtime. Confidence that data is not only adequately protected but can be restored is key for IT managers.
4. Cost — Doing more with less will be a general theme for 2009 and data protection is no exception. IT managers will increasingly look for lower-cost backup strategies and technologies such as data deduplication, which promise to reduce amount of disk media needed for backup dramatically. IT managers need to weigh media advantages of deduplication with potential complexity and slow-down of recovery processes.
5. Compliance Management — In order to meet governmental compliance requirements, companies need a reliable data recovery system. Such systems must include recovery of not only specific files, but email, instant messages and other data that might be needed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (known as FRCP rules) for civil litigation. The recent economic meltdown, coupled with a litigious business environment, makes it necessary for corporate data to be accessible to third-party auditors and attorneys.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: zmanda.com
Zmanda™, the leader in open source backup and recovery software, recently polled leading storage analysts to get their views on the top ten data protection challenges and trends facing companies in 2009. Lauren Whitehouse of Enterprise Strategy Group, David Hill of Mesabi Group, and Jerome Wendt of DCIG offered their thoughts on these key data protection issues:
1. Change — Organizations are experiencing a lot of change — often disruptive to data protection policies, practices and technologies — making it difficult for IT to keep pace. For example, server virtualization has impacted the fundamentals of data protection strategies, requiring re-evaluation and re-architecture of processes.combination of Zmanda’s robust backup solutions with Sun’s innovative OpenSolaris operating system, including the advanced ZFS file system, creates one of the most advanced backup-to-disk offerings available on the market today. Specifically, the snapshot capability of ZFS enables fast and scalable backups of today’s most demanding workloads.
2. Data Growth — Large and growing IT and data storage environments are compounding problems with managing data protection, completing backup or recovery within prescribed windows, and managing the cost of storage systems.
3. Reliability — IT organizations are challenged to improve the reliability of backup and recovery. Typically, the number one concern for any organization is to prevent or minimize the amount of downtime. Confidence that data is not only adequately protected but can be restored is key for IT managers.
4. Cost — Doing more with less will be a general theme for 2009 and data protection is no exception. IT managers will increasingly look for lower-cost backup strategies and technologies such as data deduplication, which promise to reduce amount of disk media needed for backup dramatically. IT managers need to weigh media advantages of deduplication with potential complexity and slow-down of recovery processes.
5. Compliance Management — In order to meet governmental compliance requirements, companies need a reliable data recovery system. Such systems must include recovery of not only specific files, but email, instant messages and other data that might be needed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (known as FRCP rules) for civil litigation. The recent economic meltdown, coupled with a litigious business environment, makes it necessary for corporate data to be accessible to third-party auditors and attorneys.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: zmanda.com
What If My Storage Cloud Turns Stormy?
Services that store enterprise data in a "cloud" on the Internet raise questions that organizations are just beginning to ask, but for all their limitations, they may be no more risky than on-site storage platforms.
The technology behind cloud storage, as well as cloud computing, lets enterprises tap into IT resources without regard to where they're located. So cloud computing typically means relegating primary or backup data to an undefined repository outside the enterprise rather than a local data center or a dedicated remote site. By using cloud storage services, organizations can save on capital expenses and on complex setup and administration tasks, proponents say.
Putting data in the cloud can also make it accessible from more locations.
Saving work and expense is a key reason why cloud services are expected to grow in the next few years. Last year, 4 percent of worldwide IT spending went to cloud services, and by 2012 that figure will be 9 percent, according to research company IDC. Because of its cost and space requirements, data storage is a prime candidate for a cloud solution, and IDC predicts storage will grow from 8 percent to 13 percent of cloud spending in that same period.
Vendors are stepping up to fill that demand. Amazon.com made an early splash in cloud computing and now includes a storage service, called S3, in its offerings. Nirvanix started offering a cloud archiving and backup service in 2007, and some of the biggest names in storage, including EMC's Mozy unit and Seagate, have also entered the game.
Anyone who's pondering how to deal with a cloud storage provider is already ahead of the game, according to analyst Henry Baltazar of The 451 Group.
"Right now, people aren't really (looking out) for this, because they're still weighing out whether they want to use cloud storage or not. ... It's still a brand-new market," Baltazar said
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: PC World
By: Stephen Lawson
The technology behind cloud storage, as well as cloud computing, lets enterprises tap into IT resources without regard to where they're located. So cloud computing typically means relegating primary or backup data to an undefined repository outside the enterprise rather than a local data center or a dedicated remote site. By using cloud storage services, organizations can save on capital expenses and on complex setup and administration tasks, proponents say.
Putting data in the cloud can also make it accessible from more locations.
Saving work and expense is a key reason why cloud services are expected to grow in the next few years. Last year, 4 percent of worldwide IT spending went to cloud services, and by 2012 that figure will be 9 percent, according to research company IDC. Because of its cost and space requirements, data storage is a prime candidate for a cloud solution, and IDC predicts storage will grow from 8 percent to 13 percent of cloud spending in that same period.
Vendors are stepping up to fill that demand. Amazon.com made an early splash in cloud computing and now includes a storage service, called S3, in its offerings. Nirvanix started offering a cloud archiving and backup service in 2007, and some of the biggest names in storage, including EMC's Mozy unit and Seagate, have also entered the game.
Anyone who's pondering how to deal with a cloud storage provider is already ahead of the game, according to analyst Henry Baltazar of The 451 Group.
"Right now, people aren't really (looking out) for this, because they're still weighing out whether they want to use cloud storage or not. ... It's still a brand-new market," Baltazar said
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: PC World
By: Stephen Lawson
Pitfalls of Runaway E-Discovery Requests
E-discovery has become more than merely a discovery process; it has become an alternate method of trying a lawsuit
Scenario No. 1: After receipt of a lawsuit, and again after receipt of request for documents, counsel for defendant discusses the need to gather pertinent documents, including electronically stored information. Defendant searches its computer system and locates no relevant ESI. Following depositions, a network server malfunctions and during a service call a computer technician identifies several gigabytes of relevant data in a dormant partition. Defendant immediately reports identification of the data to its counsel, who quickly notifies plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiff files a motion for sanctions, which is granted, including sanctions directly against counsel for their "gross negligence" in failing to identify potential sources of electronic information.
Scenario No. 2: Defendant logs into plaintiff's computer system and downloads numerous files. The downloaded files, which are logged by plaintiff, are actually files owned by a third-party vendor common to plaintiff and defendant. There is thus no significant damage caused by the access. Defendant admits the access and offers an injunction prohibiting access to plaintiff's computer system. In subsequent lawsuit, however, plaintiff engages in a scorched earth e-discovery examination. Such examination includes comparing the contents of dozens of defendant's computers to the contents of plaintiff's server. In creating the baseline of files from plaintiff's server, no attempt is made to include only files owned by plaintiff. Instead, the baseline includes application files, such as Word and Acrobat, and files owned by third parties. As a result, there are tens of thousands of irrelevant "hits" in the file comparison. Ultimately, litigation costs far outweigh the possible range of damages, the winners being the attorneys.
Scenario No. 3: In an employment lawsuit, plaintiff does not trust defendant's production. Furthermore, plaintiffs counsel has read several e-discovery sanction cases including Zubulake v. UBS Warburg V, 2004 WL 1620866 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2004) and recent case of Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-CV-1958-B (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008). As a result, plaintiff requests production of defendant's hard drives so that plaintiff can conduct a forensic search of the hard drives for responsive information, and perhaps identify a failure to preserve and/or produce electronic information.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Larry H. Kunin
Scenario No. 1: After receipt of a lawsuit, and again after receipt of request for documents, counsel for defendant discusses the need to gather pertinent documents, including electronically stored information. Defendant searches its computer system and locates no relevant ESI. Following depositions, a network server malfunctions and during a service call a computer technician identifies several gigabytes of relevant data in a dormant partition. Defendant immediately reports identification of the data to its counsel, who quickly notifies plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiff files a motion for sanctions, which is granted, including sanctions directly against counsel for their "gross negligence" in failing to identify potential sources of electronic information.
Scenario No. 2: Defendant logs into plaintiff's computer system and downloads numerous files. The downloaded files, which are logged by plaintiff, are actually files owned by a third-party vendor common to plaintiff and defendant. There is thus no significant damage caused by the access. Defendant admits the access and offers an injunction prohibiting access to plaintiff's computer system. In subsequent lawsuit, however, plaintiff engages in a scorched earth e-discovery examination. Such examination includes comparing the contents of dozens of defendant's computers to the contents of plaintiff's server. In creating the baseline of files from plaintiff's server, no attempt is made to include only files owned by plaintiff. Instead, the baseline includes application files, such as Word and Acrobat, and files owned by third parties. As a result, there are tens of thousands of irrelevant "hits" in the file comparison. Ultimately, litigation costs far outweigh the possible range of damages, the winners being the attorneys.
Scenario No. 3: In an employment lawsuit, plaintiff does not trust defendant's production. Furthermore, plaintiffs counsel has read several e-discovery sanction cases including Zubulake v. UBS Warburg V, 2004 WL 1620866 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2004) and recent case of Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-CV-1958-B (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008). As a result, plaintiff requests production of defendant's hard drives so that plaintiff can conduct a forensic search of the hard drives for responsive information, and perhaps identify a failure to preserve and/or produce electronic information.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Larry H. Kunin
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Compliance (and E-discovery) a Hot Topic Right Now
Compliance is one of the beats I cover for WS&T, and in spite of the market conditions, or perhaps precisely because of them, compliance seems to be one area that is positively thriving right now.
In particular, I am being inundated on a daily basis with phone calls and emails from e-discovery vendors.
This is a sector where competition is high and all the vendors I’ve spoken to over the last couple of months expect to see a huge rise in e-discovery requests due to the current financial crisis (eg regulators looking into M&As, wrongdoing, fraud, etc, and wanting to delve into companies’ electronic records).
In the last week alone, at least 2 or 3 e-discovery/compliance vendors have contacted me on a daily basis.
Tata Consultancy Services, who came to our Manhattan offices today to brief us on industry trends, also highlighted just how hot an issue compliance has become.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com
In particular, I am being inundated on a daily basis with phone calls and emails from e-discovery vendors.
This is a sector where competition is high and all the vendors I’ve spoken to over the last couple of months expect to see a huge rise in e-discovery requests due to the current financial crisis (eg regulators looking into M&As, wrongdoing, fraud, etc, and wanting to delve into companies’ electronic records).
In the last week alone, at least 2 or 3 e-discovery/compliance vendors have contacted me on a daily basis.
Tata Consultancy Services, who came to our Manhattan offices today to brief us on industry trends, also highlighted just how hot an issue compliance has become.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com
EDRM Luncheon at LegalTech New York Conference to Address Key E-Discovery Issues
The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (“EDRM”), an industry group created to develop and establish practical guidelines and standards for electronic discovery, today announces:
WHAT: An EDRM “Lunch and Learn” featuring George Socha, Tom Gelbmann and other industry leaders for a presentation on the key trends impacting e-discovery professionals, including advancing standards across all phases of the process (Evergreen), ethical challenges (Model Code of Conduct), search practices and technology advancements (Search), data challenges (Data Set) and XML integration between various e-discovery tools (XML). Attendees will also have an opportunity to learn more about involvement in this industry-leading organization.
WHEN: Tuesday, February 3, from 12-1:30 pm ET
WHERE: Warwick Hotel, Warwick Banquet Room, 2nd Floor
TO REGISTER: Email: legaltech@edrm.net. Attendance is limited to one company representative and one guest as space is limited.
ADDITIONAL DETAILS: EDRM leaders will give short presentations on their working group activities and progress in 2008 as well as activities of focus in 2009. Attendees can expect to learn more about:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: uk.sys-con.com
WHAT: An EDRM “Lunch and Learn” featuring George Socha, Tom Gelbmann and other industry leaders for a presentation on the key trends impacting e-discovery professionals, including advancing standards across all phases of the process (Evergreen), ethical challenges (Model Code of Conduct), search practices and technology advancements (Search), data challenges (Data Set) and XML integration between various e-discovery tools (XML). Attendees will also have an opportunity to learn more about involvement in this industry-leading organization.
WHEN: Tuesday, February 3, from 12-1:30 pm ET
WHERE: Warwick Hotel, Warwick Banquet Room, 2nd Floor
TO REGISTER: Email: legaltech@edrm.net. Attendance is limited to one company representative and one guest as space is limited.
ADDITIONAL DETAILS: EDRM leaders will give short presentations on their working group activities and progress in 2008 as well as activities of focus in 2009. Attendees can expect to learn more about:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: uk.sys-con.com
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Teaching IT and Legal to Understand Each Other
Whether they're getting ready for the Securities and Exchange Commission's XBRL filing requirement or trying to figure out what their document management and retrieval system should do to best comply with e-discovery requirements, IT and legal can no longer do their jobs effectively without each other.
Findings from the latest Kroll Ontrack report on trends in management of electronically stored information bear this out. For instance, 35 percent of survey respondents were giving primary responsibility for ESI (electronically stored information) policy development and enforcement to IT in 2008, up from only 18 percent in 2007.
"Responsibility for ESI strategy creation and enforcement must leverage the legal and technical expertise across the entire company – CEO, board, legal, IT, HR, finance and compliance," the report says. "An ongoing marriage between IT and the legal team – blessed by sponsorship from the board – is essential to ensure that the plans put in place are adequate, all encompassing and feasible."
But most of the time, IT and legal don't speak the same language. IT operates with charts, diagrams and technical jargon, while those in the law department are often best known as masters of "legalese." Moreover, notes Kroll Ontrack Director of Legal Technologies Michele Lange, the two don't often have similar interests. So how does one go about getting IT and legal around the same table and on the same page when it comes to ESI? Lange says her company, which provides ESI consulting computer forensics and other legal technology services, takes a three-pronged approach:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: itbusinessedge.com
By: Lora Bentley
Findings from the latest Kroll Ontrack report on trends in management of electronically stored information bear this out. For instance, 35 percent of survey respondents were giving primary responsibility for ESI (electronically stored information) policy development and enforcement to IT in 2008, up from only 18 percent in 2007.
"Responsibility for ESI strategy creation and enforcement must leverage the legal and technical expertise across the entire company – CEO, board, legal, IT, HR, finance and compliance," the report says. "An ongoing marriage between IT and the legal team – blessed by sponsorship from the board – is essential to ensure that the plans put in place are adequate, all encompassing and feasible."
But most of the time, IT and legal don't speak the same language. IT operates with charts, diagrams and technical jargon, while those in the law department are often best known as masters of "legalese." Moreover, notes Kroll Ontrack Director of Legal Technologies Michele Lange, the two don't often have similar interests. So how does one go about getting IT and legal around the same table and on the same page when it comes to ESI? Lange says her company, which provides ESI consulting computer forensics and other legal technology services, takes a three-pronged approach:
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: itbusinessedge.com
By: Lora Bentley
Electronic Document Retention: What You Should Know
Recent events have made a valid, consistently enforced policy a necessity for every business, including alleged corporate malfeasance and the willingness of courts to impose sanctions for failure to produce documents in litigation. There are recently adopted rules requiring electronic discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT solutions that provide peace of mind. Rackspace commits to delivering an unequaled customer experience by supporting the technology and the customer 24x7x365. No call centers or automated phone systems; every customer has a dedicated support team.
Businesses have experienced an explosion of electronic documents and data because of increasing use of electronic devices, decreasing cost of storage media and the expanding use of email. Added to the paper documents generated by the business, this electronic information can be an impediment to efficient business operations, a potential time bomb in the event of litigation and a business continuity disaster, if lost.
Electronic information must be purged from time to time. However, purging should not be done if the threat of litigation appears imminent. Arthur Andersen executives were criminally penalized and the company was fined and prohibited from auditing public companies because they instructed Enron executives to strictly follow the document retention policy even after the threat of litigation.
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------
Source: cio-today.com
Tanking Economy Begins to Affect E-Discovery Servicing Firms
Economic belt-cinching has hit some electronic discovery servicing firms, prompting layoffs and rumors of realignments.
Rumors of recent layoffs at i365, a Seagate Technology company, were confirmed by a spokesman who declined to provide details.
"We're not able to disclose any specific numbers about our recent realignment," said John Sun, spokesman for i365, a data retention and recovery company.
The firm has "periodically undertaken reorganizations and consolidations in order to capitalize on synergies across the company," Sun said. The company "recently realigned our engineering teams" and "eliminated some duplicative support and administrative infrastructure across our broader portfolio," he said, but refused to give specifics.
Sun added that it does not expect "any major changes in the next year."
Seagate, the hard drive-maker, announced in mid-January that it was laying off 3,000 workers, or 6 percent of its global workforce. It did not disclose how many were related to the i365 firm's document control division.
Electronic discovery is an emerging market in the field of data storage, archiving and recovery of electronic data such as e-mail and voicemail to assist companies and law firms in responding to lawsuits and government investigations.
At Electronic Evidence Discovery Inc. (EED) of Kirkland, Wash., there has been a "tiny, tiny" number of layoffs in the last six months, 15 employees out of a 300-member workforce, according to Dennis Palmer, a company spokesman. "But we're backed by the $30 billion Welsh Carson Anderson & Stowe, the largest private equity firm focused on information business services and health care," Palmer said. "We'll be here forever," he added.
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Pamela A. MacLean
Proactive eDiscovery
Take charge of enterprise information to reduce risk, maintain compliance, and save a bundle.
Companies of all sizes are facing increased litigation risks and costs today. A great way to reduce those risks and costs is by adopting a proactive eDiscovery approach. If you're not sure what "proactive" eDiscovery means, this article not only offers a good definition, but also explains the trends that make proactive eDiscovery inevitable, how to implement a proactive solution that can save you money, and how to get started now.
Getting a Handle on eDiscovery
"Discovery" is the legal process that all companies facing lawsuits are required to go through in order to produce relevant documents for the court to consider.
Generally, any company with $1B in revenue faces multiple legal matters. They may be spurious, or legitimate-but for good-sized companies, they're inevitable. What's notable is that those companies spend between $2.5 million and $4 million a year on legal discovery of electronic files alone.
What's driving those costs? Part of it is an increase in the number of lawsuits. Part of it is the new regulations that enterprises have to comply with in the wake of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. But probably the most important factor driving the increase in legal discovery costs is the rapid growth of electronic data that is generated and stored by companies as part of their ongoing business operations. While technology has made our lives at work easier and more productive, it has also contributed to the proliferation of electronically stored information (ESI). To make things more complicated, as much as 90 percent of all that information is unstructured and unmanaged. Most companies do not have well defined information management policies in place to manage the explosive growth of this data. This is a recipe that can lead to huge litigation costs later for companies when they have to reactively dig through mountains of information to provide timely responses for eDiscovery requests.
Couple the explosive data growth with the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and you will realize that companies need to pay attention-as UBS Warburg and Merck learned-paying $29.2 million and $253 million respectively for non-compliance in litigation that required eDiscovery of documents.
Clearly the new FRCP rules-unlike many other compliance rules-are being enforced.
To Continue Reading: Click Here-------------------------------------------
Source: destinationcrm.com
By: Ursula Talley
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Are the 14 million "found" White House E-mails the new Watergate Tapes?
Perhaps the most frequently-asked question about Watergate is: "How could the conspirators have been so foolish, gabbing away even though they knew the tape recorder was on?" The answer: They were human, and, as such, erred.
Anne Weisman, chief counsel for the non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, compared the infamous gap in the Nixon-Haldeman Oval Office tape to the 14 million White House e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005 that were missing during the investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak, when they might have yielded a smoking gun.
"The Watergate Tapes had an eighteen-and-a-half minute gap where [Nixon secretary] Rosemary Woods did whatever she did," Weisman told me. "We're talking here about a gap of at least fourteen million e-mails."
Early this year, the White House found the e-mails--it turns out they never were missing but rather, unaccounted for due to a "flawed and limited" internal review. On January 14, Weisman convinced a federal court to order the White House to preserve the e-mails and all relevant records.
Now, filling in the gaps in the CIA leak case--like why Bush administration officials exposed Valerie Plame Wilson's covert operative status to Robert Novak and other journalists--may be as simple as entering "plame" as a search term (or "plane," allowing for misspelling).
"E-mail is a blessing, and it can be a curse, because it's a written record," Weisman said. "And people know that intellectually. Still they dash off e-mails, without thinking about what they're saying, as if they're talking on the phone. As a result, you get a lot of very honest information that isn't scrutinized the way official memoranda are."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: huffingtonpost.com
By: Keith Thomson
Anne Weisman, chief counsel for the non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, compared the infamous gap in the Nixon-Haldeman Oval Office tape to the 14 million White House e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005 that were missing during the investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak, when they might have yielded a smoking gun.
"The Watergate Tapes had an eighteen-and-a-half minute gap where [Nixon secretary] Rosemary Woods did whatever she did," Weisman told me. "We're talking here about a gap of at least fourteen million e-mails."
Early this year, the White House found the e-mails--it turns out they never were missing but rather, unaccounted for due to a "flawed and limited" internal review. On January 14, Weisman convinced a federal court to order the White House to preserve the e-mails and all relevant records.
Now, filling in the gaps in the CIA leak case--like why Bush administration officials exposed Valerie Plame Wilson's covert operative status to Robert Novak and other journalists--may be as simple as entering "plame" as a search term (or "plane," allowing for misspelling).
"E-mail is a blessing, and it can be a curse, because it's a written record," Weisman said. "And people know that intellectually. Still they dash off e-mails, without thinking about what they're saying, as if they're talking on the phone. As a result, you get a lot of very honest information that isn't scrutinized the way official memoranda are."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: huffingtonpost.com
By: Keith Thomson
Finding Metadata is Not a Public Record Pursuant to Arizona Public Records Law, Court Declines to Compel Production
Lake v. City of Phoenix, 2009 WL 73256 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009)
In this case, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld a superior court ruling denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of metadata associated with documents previously produced pursuant to Arizona’s Public Records Law.
In late 2006, after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint against the city, plaintiff submitted a series of public records requests. The city’s subsequent production contained hard copy versions of electronic documents responsive to his request for all notes “documenting supervisory performance” within the relevant time frame. Plaintiff suspected the notes had been backdated and requested production of the metadata associated with each document. The city refused arguing that the requested metadata was “not maintained by the city and was not available,” and that metadata was not a public record. In response, plaintiff brought a special action before the district court. Finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, the superior court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the superior court’s ruling denying the production of metadata.
Addressing the merits of plaintiff’s request, the appellate court conceded that Arizona “has a strong policy of public access to and disclosure of public records,” but noted that the presumption requiring disclosure arises only after a determination that a certain record is a public record. The court continued, stating that although the term “public record” had not been defined by the legislature, the Arizona courts have long recognized three alternative definitions:
(1) a record "made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference";
(2) a record "required to be kept, or necessary to be kept in the discharge of a duty imposed by law or directed by law to serve as a memorial and evidence of something written, said or done"; or (3) a "written record of transactions of a public officer in his office, which is a convenient and appropriate method of discharging his duties, and is kept by him as such, whether required by ... law or not."
Addressing each definition in turn, the court found that metadata did not fall under the first definition where the officer creating the notes at issue “did not create the metadata pursuant to any such duty, as it was generated only as a by-product of his use of a computer” and where “the purpose of the metadata was not to “disseminate information to the public” or “to serve as a memorial of an official transaction…”
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
Who's reading insider e-mails? Try the IT guys.
As insiders of Synenco Energy Inc. feverishly negotiated a takeover bid last spring, they did not know the progress of their talks was being monitored by an unseen observer.
Regulators revealed yesterday that an information technology analyst working at TD Securities Inc. in Calgary was reading the personal e-mails of investment bankers working on the deal, and bought Synenco securities using undisclosed information about a pending offer from French energy giant Total SA.
Although based in Calgary, Fadi Hurani admitted he traded through a brokerage account set up in Montreal under a relative's name.
The investigation comes amid a string of recent cases in which people apparently far from the inner circles of corporate power have been accused of trading on information they allegedly obtained by illicitly reading e-mails.
While it appears no senior officials involved in any of the recent cases knew their companies' confidential information had been breached, regulators say firms are responsible for ensuring critical e-mail is not intercepted.
Alberta Securities Commission spokeswoman Tamera Van Brunt said companies "must remain vigilant" in securing insider information that is communicated by e-mail.
"It is up to each company to ensure the security of insider information, whether it is transferred electronically or physically, and stress to staff the importance of security and the possible consequences of using insider information," she said.
Most of the recent cases involve people who had access to e-mails by working in information technology jobs, or by knowing people in such positions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: Reportonbusiness.com
By: Janet MacFarland
Regulators revealed yesterday that an information technology analyst working at TD Securities Inc. in Calgary was reading the personal e-mails of investment bankers working on the deal, and bought Synenco securities using undisclosed information about a pending offer from French energy giant Total SA.
Although based in Calgary, Fadi Hurani admitted he traded through a brokerage account set up in Montreal under a relative's name.
The investigation comes amid a string of recent cases in which people apparently far from the inner circles of corporate power have been accused of trading on information they allegedly obtained by illicitly reading e-mails.
While it appears no senior officials involved in any of the recent cases knew their companies' confidential information had been breached, regulators say firms are responsible for ensuring critical e-mail is not intercepted.
Alberta Securities Commission spokeswoman Tamera Van Brunt said companies "must remain vigilant" in securing insider information that is communicated by e-mail.
"It is up to each company to ensure the security of insider information, whether it is transferred electronically or physically, and stress to staff the importance of security and the possible consequences of using insider information," she said.
Most of the recent cases involve people who had access to e-mails by working in information technology jobs, or by knowing people in such positions.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: Reportonbusiness.com
By: Janet MacFarland
How to set your records straight
IT leaders must be mindful of myriad overlapping rules governing how they handle corporate information.
In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between physical and electronic records; the same degree of stewardship must be applied to whatever format an organisation chooses to store its vital information. And there is no shortage of standards, rules and regulations that apply to the handling and retention of information.
To understand how to create a robust information management strategy, IT leaders must consider:
The key pieces of legislation that govern how organisations treat stored data and the key requirements that are imposed by the legislation.
The specific requirements for storing personal information; the access rights associated with legislation.
The powers of the Information Commissioner.
The problems faced by an organisation which has to make disclosure in legal proceedings.
What are the key laws governing information management?
The main pieces of legislation that affect the retention of business information are: The Companies Act 1985 and 2006; the Limitation Act 1980; the Electronic Communications Act 2000; and various Finance Acts.
For personal information, the primary pieces of legislation are the Data Protection Act 1989 and the right to respect for personal privacy in the Human Rights Act 2000.
For organisations in the public sector, there are also specific requirements for dealing with public records and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to consider.
However, there are other specific obligations, for example in relation to employee data or health and safety records, which may affect specialist businesses. There is also a multitude of “soft law” – the various codes of practice that apply in particular areas and can affect retention decisions.
Finally, there are non-statutory but still mandatory rules. For example, those businesses that operate in the financial services sector are subject to the rulings of the Financial Services Ombudsman under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in which the FSA has set out the Principles for Business.
Can you explain the main legal drivers?
The main provisions of the Companies Act that are relevant to the issue of data retention are those concerned with the keeping of accounting records. Companies must keep accounting records that are sufficient to enable them to disclose, with reasonable accuracy, a company’s financial position at the time they are asked.
Company directors must ensure compliance with the Companies Act, and the accounting records have to be detailed enough for them to do so. The legislation dictates that the accounts must contain day-to-day entries of all sums of money received and expended by the company, and show all the assets and liabilities of the firm. There are additional requirements where the company’s business involves the sale or purchase of goods.
Accounting records must be kept for a period of three years from the date on which they are made for a private company and six years for a public company. In some cases there can be criminal penalties for failure to retain records. Under Section 450 of the Companies Act 1985, an officer of a company who destroys documents relating to the company’s property or affairs is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment unless they can show they had no intention of concealing the state of affairs of the company. These legal retention periods must therefore be built into a company’s document retention policy.
As a general rule, UK tax records must be kept for at least six years following the end of the accounting period to which they relate. The Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 require that documents such as wage sheets and deductions working sheets are kept for three years from the end of the tax year to which they relate.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: WhatPC
By: Rosemary Jay
In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between physical and electronic records; the same degree of stewardship must be applied to whatever format an organisation chooses to store its vital information. And there is no shortage of standards, rules and regulations that apply to the handling and retention of information.
To understand how to create a robust information management strategy, IT leaders must consider:
The key pieces of legislation that govern how organisations treat stored data and the key requirements that are imposed by the legislation.
The specific requirements for storing personal information; the access rights associated with legislation.
The powers of the Information Commissioner.
The problems faced by an organisation which has to make disclosure in legal proceedings.
What are the key laws governing information management?
The main pieces of legislation that affect the retention of business information are: The Companies Act 1985 and 2006; the Limitation Act 1980; the Electronic Communications Act 2000; and various Finance Acts.
For personal information, the primary pieces of legislation are the Data Protection Act 1989 and the right to respect for personal privacy in the Human Rights Act 2000.
For organisations in the public sector, there are also specific requirements for dealing with public records and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to consider.
However, there are other specific obligations, for example in relation to employee data or health and safety records, which may affect specialist businesses. There is also a multitude of “soft law” – the various codes of practice that apply in particular areas and can affect retention decisions.
Finally, there are non-statutory but still mandatory rules. For example, those businesses that operate in the financial services sector are subject to the rulings of the Financial Services Ombudsman under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in which the FSA has set out the Principles for Business.
Can you explain the main legal drivers?
The main provisions of the Companies Act that are relevant to the issue of data retention are those concerned with the keeping of accounting records. Companies must keep accounting records that are sufficient to enable them to disclose, with reasonable accuracy, a company’s financial position at the time they are asked.
Company directors must ensure compliance with the Companies Act, and the accounting records have to be detailed enough for them to do so. The legislation dictates that the accounts must contain day-to-day entries of all sums of money received and expended by the company, and show all the assets and liabilities of the firm. There are additional requirements where the company’s business involves the sale or purchase of goods.
Accounting records must be kept for a period of three years from the date on which they are made for a private company and six years for a public company. In some cases there can be criminal penalties for failure to retain records. Under Section 450 of the Companies Act 1985, an officer of a company who destroys documents relating to the company’s property or affairs is guilty of an offence punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment unless they can show they had no intention of concealing the state of affairs of the company. These legal retention periods must therefore be built into a company’s document retention policy.
As a general rule, UK tax records must be kept for at least six years following the end of the accounting period to which they relate. The Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 require that documents such as wage sheets and deductions working sheets are kept for three years from the end of the tax year to which they relate.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: WhatPC
By: Rosemary Jay
The Future of EDD in a Wounded Economy
In something of an impromptu Philip K. Dick film festival, I had a chance to revisit the still-inspired 1982 "Blade Runner" and the still-disappointing 1990 "Total Recall."
The first showed a billboard for Pan American Airlines, circa 2019; the other for a Sharper Image store, circa 2084. Of course, Pan Am (its lunar shuttle also figured prominently in "2001: A Space Odyssey") collapsed just 10 years after "Blade Runner"'s release, and Sharper Image closed all stores last year.
Perhaps there is a lesson here: These cinachronisms bear out the folly of assuming too much about the future. Wall Street's crystal ball is no better than Hollywood's.
Going back to 1896 and the 12 companies on the original Dow Jones Industrial Average, nearly all were broken up or absorbed generations ago. Only General Electric remains a part of the DJIA. The pundits of the Roaring '20s no doubt took it for granted that U.S. Leather would stay on top -- surely industrious America would always need miles and miles of leather belts to transfer power to machinery!
Packard Motor Car Co., F.W. Woolworth Co., Trans World Airlines, Arthur Andersen, Enron Corp., Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual Inc., Heller Ehrman ... all gone. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, an expert on unforseen calamities, "Stuff happens" -- and there's more to come.
If you think the markets and indicators have bottomed out, think again. There's more smoke to clear, more mirrors to break. The electronic data discovery industry and, to a lesser extent, the legal services industry are microcosms of the broader wounded economy.
Marc Dreier, the nabob New York lawyer accused of peddling hundreds of millions of dollars of bogus commercial paper, is our industry's Mini-Me to Bernard Madoff's Dr. Evil. Tinfoil titans laid low overnight. So, write this on your hand and don't wash it off: Nothing is sacred. No one is safe. Anyone can disappear ... fast.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Craig Ball
The first showed a billboard for Pan American Airlines, circa 2019; the other for a Sharper Image store, circa 2084. Of course, Pan Am (its lunar shuttle also figured prominently in "2001: A Space Odyssey") collapsed just 10 years after "Blade Runner"'s release, and Sharper Image closed all stores last year.
Perhaps there is a lesson here: These cinachronisms bear out the folly of assuming too much about the future. Wall Street's crystal ball is no better than Hollywood's.
Going back to 1896 and the 12 companies on the original Dow Jones Industrial Average, nearly all were broken up or absorbed generations ago. Only General Electric remains a part of the DJIA. The pundits of the Roaring '20s no doubt took it for granted that U.S. Leather would stay on top -- surely industrious America would always need miles and miles of leather belts to transfer power to machinery!
Packard Motor Car Co., F.W. Woolworth Co., Trans World Airlines, Arthur Andersen, Enron Corp., Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual Inc., Heller Ehrman ... all gone. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, an expert on unforseen calamities, "Stuff happens" -- and there's more to come.
If you think the markets and indicators have bottomed out, think again. There's more smoke to clear, more mirrors to break. The electronic data discovery industry and, to a lesser extent, the legal services industry are microcosms of the broader wounded economy.
Marc Dreier, the nabob New York lawyer accused of peddling hundreds of millions of dollars of bogus commercial paper, is our industry's Mini-Me to Bernard Madoff's Dr. Evil. Tinfoil titans laid low overnight. So, write this on your hand and don't wash it off: Nothing is sacred. No one is safe. Anyone can disappear ... fast.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By: Craig Ball
Monday, January 26, 2009
INTERNET LAW - Accessing Former Employer's E-Mail May Violate the U.S. Stored Communications Act
A United States federal district court held that intentionally accessing personal e-mails belonging to others may constitute a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.C.S.C. § 2701 et seq., basing its decision directly on the language of SCA.
Cardinal Health 414 v. Daniel Adams et al., Case No. 3:07-00691 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 10, 2008), a federal district court in Tennessee has accepted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment brought under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.C.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The SCA, a criminal statute, also provides a private right of action against one who “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains … access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system…”
In Cardinal Health, the plaintiff, a nuclear pharmacy, filed suit against two former employees, Adams and Townsend, accusing them of accessing the workplace e-mail, without authorization, after their employment with the pharmacy had ended. Adams had the logon information of the manager who replaced him after his resignation from the company. Adams later accessed that manager’s e-mail account on a regular basis. Adams subsequently forwarded selected e-mails to the other defendant, Townsend, also a former employee of the company, who had left Cardinal Health to start his own competing business.
Although the exact number of e-mails accessed by the defendants remained undetermined, and the computer evidence from which such information could be garnered was destroyed, it was nevertheless uncontested that Adams had accessed the e-mail of the former manager at Cardinal Health on a number of occasions. The court ruled that Adams’ claims that the information access was “pure gossip” were not relevant to determining whether a violation of the SCA had occurred. Rather, mere unauthorized access committed knowingly and willfully, was sufficient to establish a violation of the SCA. Therefore, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ claims against Adams and held that Adams violated the SCA as a matter of law.
Why was Townsend not charged with a violation of the SCA?
Townsend did not actively access the e-mails of his former employer. Rather, he merely received a copy of such e-mails from Adams. The court held that because the SCA punishes “access” but does not prohibit disclosure and use of the information accessed, Townsend was not liable under the SCA. “Access” is not a term defined in the SCA, and the court was unwilling to extend the meaning of this term to include use of computer resources.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: Internet Business Law Services
Cardinal Health 414 v. Daniel Adams et al., Case No. 3:07-00691 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 10, 2008), a federal district court in Tennessee has accepted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment brought under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.C.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The SCA, a criminal statute, also provides a private right of action against one who “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains … access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system…”
In Cardinal Health, the plaintiff, a nuclear pharmacy, filed suit against two former employees, Adams and Townsend, accusing them of accessing the workplace e-mail, without authorization, after their employment with the pharmacy had ended. Adams had the logon information of the manager who replaced him after his resignation from the company. Adams later accessed that manager’s e-mail account on a regular basis. Adams subsequently forwarded selected e-mails to the other defendant, Townsend, also a former employee of the company, who had left Cardinal Health to start his own competing business.
Although the exact number of e-mails accessed by the defendants remained undetermined, and the computer evidence from which such information could be garnered was destroyed, it was nevertheless uncontested that Adams had accessed the e-mail of the former manager at Cardinal Health on a number of occasions. The court ruled that Adams’ claims that the information access was “pure gossip” were not relevant to determining whether a violation of the SCA had occurred. Rather, mere unauthorized access committed knowingly and willfully, was sufficient to establish a violation of the SCA. Therefore, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ claims against Adams and held that Adams violated the SCA as a matter of law.
Why was Townsend not charged with a violation of the SCA?
Townsend did not actively access the e-mails of his former employer. Rather, he merely received a copy of such e-mails from Adams. The court held that because the SCA punishes “access” but does not prohibit disclosure and use of the information accessed, Townsend was not liable under the SCA. “Access” is not a term defined in the SCA, and the court was unwilling to extend the meaning of this term to include use of computer resources.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: Internet Business Law Services
Autonomy and Interwoven - a sign of things to come?
So it finally happened. Speculaors have been predicting the acquisition of Interwoven and Vignette in the ECM space for years now, and last week, UK success story and erstwhile enterprise search firm Autonomy announced it was to snap up the former in a $775 million deal.
So is it a good move for the firm, and what does it say about the industry in general?
Well, it certainly makes sense for Autonomy to have plumped for Interwoven as opposed to Vignette. Interwoven's newly released fourth quarter earnings were very impressive; $69.8, or an increase of 11 per cent from total revenues of $62.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2007.
And for the year ended December 31, 2008, the firm's total revenues were $260.3 million, up 15 per cent from 2007.
So financially Autonomy chose the stronger company, and if you believe chief exec Mike Lynch, the two firms' product sets and management teams are well known to each other, the vendors having shared both "customers and partnerships over the years".
So how does it fit with Autonomy's strategic vision? Pretty well, actually. The firm has been moving gradually beyond its core competence in enterprise search to become an infrastructure software provider for some time now. Its portfolio now includes video and audio analysis tools, call centre monitoring and analytics software, business process management, the hugely profitable e-discovery and archiving area, and records management. According to Ben Richmond, founder of ECM consultancy The Content Group, this latest in a long line of acquisitions is all about Autonomy becoming a mainstream ECM vendor, and with records management and BPM already under its belt, it's easy to see why.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------
Source: Information World Review
By: Phil Muncaster
So is it a good move for the firm, and what does it say about the industry in general?
Well, it certainly makes sense for Autonomy to have plumped for Interwoven as opposed to Vignette. Interwoven's newly released fourth quarter earnings were very impressive; $69.8, or an increase of 11 per cent from total revenues of $62.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2007.
And for the year ended December 31, 2008, the firm's total revenues were $260.3 million, up 15 per cent from 2007.
So financially Autonomy chose the stronger company, and if you believe chief exec Mike Lynch, the two firms' product sets and management teams are well known to each other, the vendors having shared both "customers and partnerships over the years".
So how does it fit with Autonomy's strategic vision? Pretty well, actually. The firm has been moving gradually beyond its core competence in enterprise search to become an infrastructure software provider for some time now. Its portfolio now includes video and audio analysis tools, call centre monitoring and analytics software, business process management, the hugely profitable e-discovery and archiving area, and records management. According to Ben Richmond, founder of ECM consultancy The Content Group, this latest in a long line of acquisitions is all about Autonomy becoming a mainstream ECM vendor, and with records management and BPM already under its belt, it's easy to see why.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------------
Source: Information World Review
By: Phil Muncaster
LegalTech Adds Twitter Panel; Discussion to Focus on Potential of Emerging Social Media Tool for Law Firms and Lawyers
LegalTech New York has added a panel discussion on the emerging social media and microblogging tool, Twitter, to its program agenda. The session, “What is Twitter and How Can I Use It?” will explore the potential use of Twitter by law firms and lawyers, and will take place February 2 at 3:00 PM ET in the West Grand Ballroom. Incisive Media's upcoming LegalTech New York conference, the world’s largest and most prestigious legal technology conference and trade show, takes place February 2-4 at the Hilton Hotel in New York City. Complete conference information is available at www.legaltechshow.com.
The session will be moderated by Monica Bay, editor in chief of Incisive Media’s Law Technology News. Panelists include Matthew Homann, founder of LexThink LLC; Kevin O’Keefe, chief executive officer of Lex Blog; and Chris Winfield, president of 10e20, with special guest Robert J. Ambrogi, lawyer, author and blogger.
Topics to be covered by the panelists will include:
- What is Twitter and why should ‘I’ use it?
- At the end of the day, is Twitter the “ultimate time waster” or a “great tool”?
- From 'huh?" to "a ha!" - one lawyer's journey into the Twitterverse or "How I learned to stop worrying and love to Tweet!"
- Time to Tweet? How to use Twitter without losing time to Twitter.
- Lawyers, Twitter and client development.
- How lawyers are using Twitter for sharing and camaraderie.
“Savvy legal professionals realize that social networking tools can help their firms -- and their own careers,” said Bay. “Twitter helps users quickly disseminate important information to key audiences and get input from targeted experts.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here------------------------------------------
Source: uk.sys-con.com
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Preventing e-Discovery Headaches
Mandatory meet-and-confer sessions set the tone--and the boundaries--of e-discovery contests
The rapid growth of electronically stored information (ESI) has greatly altered the litigation landscape. In December 2006 the U.S. Judicial Conference responded to the changing times by amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, codifying the rules surrounding electronic discovery in federal court, but also creating new burdens for both plaintiffs and defense counsel.
To help ease some of these burdens, the federal rules require a meet-and-confer conference, under rule 26(f). Under the amended rules, a responding party must generally discuss preserving and producing ESI no later than 90 to 120 days following service of the complaint. At that time the responding party must identify all sources of ESI--including backup tapes, cell phones, laptops, BlackBerries, instant-messaging systems, and home computers--in connection with its disclosures, as well as identify what categories of information it need not produce because of undue burden or cost.
"[I]t is important for the attorneys to collaborate in the early stages of a case when discovery is being planned," says Gregory B. Wood, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Fulbright & Jaworski. "Parties must sit down and create a discovery plan, such as [database search] keywords being defined and protocols being set, so that they can move forward effectively."
The problem is that sometimes the meet-and-confer conference doesn't go as smoothly as planned. Although, ideally, both parties will come to the meeting fully prepared and ready to compromise on discovery protocols, this isn't always the case.
Benjamin Galdston, an associate in the San Diego office of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, found himself in just such a situation when litigating a securities class action against a company that had a complex and highly customized enterprise resource planning system. The system tied together all facets of the company's operations, from finance to accounting to human resources. Galdston made a routine request for the defense to produce information from this system in "native" format--the form of data used in the ordinary course of business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: callawyer.com
By: Keith Ecker
The rapid growth of electronically stored information (ESI) has greatly altered the litigation landscape. In December 2006 the U.S. Judicial Conference responded to the changing times by amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, codifying the rules surrounding electronic discovery in federal court, but also creating new burdens for both plaintiffs and defense counsel.
To help ease some of these burdens, the federal rules require a meet-and-confer conference, under rule 26(f). Under the amended rules, a responding party must generally discuss preserving and producing ESI no later than 90 to 120 days following service of the complaint. At that time the responding party must identify all sources of ESI--including backup tapes, cell phones, laptops, BlackBerries, instant-messaging systems, and home computers--in connection with its disclosures, as well as identify what categories of information it need not produce because of undue burden or cost.
"[I]t is important for the attorneys to collaborate in the early stages of a case when discovery is being planned," says Gregory B. Wood, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Fulbright & Jaworski. "Parties must sit down and create a discovery plan, such as [database search] keywords being defined and protocols being set, so that they can move forward effectively."
The problem is that sometimes the meet-and-confer conference doesn't go as smoothly as planned. Although, ideally, both parties will come to the meeting fully prepared and ready to compromise on discovery protocols, this isn't always the case.
Benjamin Galdston, an associate in the San Diego office of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, found himself in just such a situation when litigating a securities class action against a company that had a complex and highly customized enterprise resource planning system. The system tied together all facets of the company's operations, from finance to accounting to human resources. Galdston made a routine request for the defense to produce information from this system in "native" format--the form of data used in the ordinary course of business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: callawyer.com
By: Keith Ecker
Negotiating and crafting e-discovery agreements
The past decade witnessed the explosive growth of computer use among corporate clients—anecdotal reports indicate that businesses send 36 billion e-mails daily and electronically store 93 percent of all information. Nearly 80 percent of this information will never be converted to paper form. Although Georgia has not yet adopted specific provisions governing the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI), the Georgia Civil Practice Act's inclusion of “data compilations” as a category of discoverable documents leaves little doubt that electronic discovery is fair game.
In most cases, reviewing and producing every relevant electronic document is infeasible. Therefore, parties—and their respective attorneys—must narrow and focus their electronic discovery efforts. Not surprisingly, in the two years since the federal electronic discovery rules were enacted, few litigation issues have generated as much controversy as how much electronic discovery is enough. A motion to compel additional discovery may be motivated by:
• a responding party's genuine failure to conduct an adequate search;
• a pervasive belief that there must be a “smoking gun” somewhere, if only enough ESI can be examined; or
• a desire to drive up the cost of discovery and thereby extort a settlement.
In any event, the best defense against being sanctioned or ordered to go back to the drawing board midway through discovery is to craft an electronic discovery protocol that is mutually agreed upon by the parties and memorialized in the form of a stipulation or letter agreement.
There is no one-size-fits-all prophylactic solution for solving all possible discovery controversies. Instead, the scope of electronic discovery will necessarily be guided by the rule of reason, taking into account the nature of the claims and the amount in controversy. That said, every litigator should consider the following preliminary issues before starting to negotiate and draft an electronic discovery protocol:
Custodians: Who are the key players for each side and which other individuals will most likely have discoverable ESI? The protocol should identify by name each side's custodians whose electronic files will be searched.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: dailyreportonline.com
By: E. Kendrick Smith and Robin A. Schmahl
In most cases, reviewing and producing every relevant electronic document is infeasible. Therefore, parties—and their respective attorneys—must narrow and focus their electronic discovery efforts. Not surprisingly, in the two years since the federal electronic discovery rules were enacted, few litigation issues have generated as much controversy as how much electronic discovery is enough. A motion to compel additional discovery may be motivated by:
• a responding party's genuine failure to conduct an adequate search;
• a pervasive belief that there must be a “smoking gun” somewhere, if only enough ESI can be examined; or
• a desire to drive up the cost of discovery and thereby extort a settlement.
In any event, the best defense against being sanctioned or ordered to go back to the drawing board midway through discovery is to craft an electronic discovery protocol that is mutually agreed upon by the parties and memorialized in the form of a stipulation or letter agreement.
There is no one-size-fits-all prophylactic solution for solving all possible discovery controversies. Instead, the scope of electronic discovery will necessarily be guided by the rule of reason, taking into account the nature of the claims and the amount in controversy. That said, every litigator should consider the following preliminary issues before starting to negotiate and draft an electronic discovery protocol:
Custodians: Who are the key players for each side and which other individuals will most likely have discoverable ESI? The protocol should identify by name each side's custodians whose electronic files will be searched.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: dailyreportonline.com
By: E. Kendrick Smith and Robin A. Schmahl
Metadata Grows in Legal Import
Litigation demanding production of metadata is roiling the courts
A very small thing called "metadata" is getting bigger, at least in legal significance.
Attorneys said that lawsuits demanding the production of metadata -- the digital DNA of a document that can prove who created it, when and who may have altered it over time -- have increased in recent years. And courts are honoring many of those requests when they are made early on, and relevance is shown.
Most recently, a federal judge in New York ruled that companies need to be ready to produce metadata in litigation, holding that metadata associated with e-mails and electronic files must be preserved, maintained and produced in the course of legal discovery, particularly when sought early.
The case was a class action alleging unlawful searches and seizures of immigrants' homes, in which a discovery dispute arose regarding the production of metadata. Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div., 2008 WL 5062700 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008).
"There is a pattern that has developed in these cases that suggests that, when a party requests metadata early on in the e-discovery process, they're usually going to get it," said New York partner Wayne Matus, co-national head of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's electronic discovery practice.
Melissa Geist, Reed Smith's director of complex litigation electronic discovery from the Princeton, N.J., office, agreed. "That [New York] case is consistent with a clear pattern that we're seeing," Geist said. "There is a trend by parties to seek metadata, and right now what we're seeing typically is courts are ordering the production of metadata when it's sought early on in the case."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Tresa Baldas
A very small thing called "metadata" is getting bigger, at least in legal significance.
Attorneys said that lawsuits demanding the production of metadata -- the digital DNA of a document that can prove who created it, when and who may have altered it over time -- have increased in recent years. And courts are honoring many of those requests when they are made early on, and relevance is shown.
Most recently, a federal judge in New York ruled that companies need to be ready to produce metadata in litigation, holding that metadata associated with e-mails and electronic files must be preserved, maintained and produced in the course of legal discovery, particularly when sought early.
The case was a class action alleging unlawful searches and seizures of immigrants' homes, in which a discovery dispute arose regarding the production of metadata. Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div., 2008 WL 5062700 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008).
"There is a pattern that has developed in these cases that suggests that, when a party requests metadata early on in the e-discovery process, they're usually going to get it," said New York partner Wayne Matus, co-national head of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's electronic discovery practice.
Melissa Geist, Reed Smith's director of complex litigation electronic discovery from the Princeton, N.J., office, agreed. "That [New York] case is consistent with a clear pattern that we're seeing," Geist said. "There is a trend by parties to seek metadata, and right now what we're seeing typically is courts are ordering the production of metadata when it's sought early on in the case."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Tresa Baldas
Saturday, January 24, 2009
JOIN US AS A VIRTUAL PANELIST AT LEGALTECH TOWN HALL VIA YOUTUBE
Dear Friends.
I really need your help!
I am in the process of developing the content for Legaltech Town Hall: a multi-media legal technology panel modeled after the CNN Youtube US Presidential Primary Debates.
The content of this panel is driven by a YouTube video blog that Incisive Media launched last month.
The site is located at:
http://www.youtube.com/group/legaltechtownhall
(With a description athttp://www.legaltechshow.com/r5/display.asp?file=townhall.asp)
We have 26 videos posted, but I would like many more than that. Thus, I ask you to join us as a co-presenter by asking a question via the Youtube portal to the panelists.
A simple example: "Hello, my name is from the in and I want to know what effect Fed. R. Evid. 502 will have on on the cost of privilege review in discovery?"
The Panelists are:
CRAIG BALL
Trial Lawyer Technologist
Computer Forensic Examiner
THERESA H. BEAUMONT
Discovery Counsel
Google Inc.
BROWNING MAREAN
Partner
DLA Piper LLP (US)
DEENA COFFMAN
Discovery Director
Johnson & Johnson
GEORGE I. RUDOY
Director of Global Practice Technology & Information Services
Shearman & Sterling
PATRICK ZELLER
Associate General Counsel
Guidance Software Inc.
KEN WITHERS
Director, Judicial Education and Content
The Sedona Conference
Best Regards,
Patrick Oot
I really need your help!
I am in the process of developing the content for Legaltech Town Hall: a multi-media legal technology panel modeled after the CNN Youtube US Presidential Primary Debates.
The content of this panel is driven by a YouTube video blog that Incisive Media launched last month.
The site is located at:
http://www.youtube.com/group/legaltechtownhall
(With a description athttp://www.legaltechshow.com/r5/display.asp?file=townhall.asp)
We have 26 videos posted, but I would like many more than that. Thus, I ask you to join us as a co-presenter by asking a question via the Youtube portal to the panelists.
A simple example: "Hello, my name is
The Panelists are:
CRAIG BALL
Trial Lawyer Technologist
Computer Forensic Examiner
THERESA H. BEAUMONT
Discovery Counsel
Google Inc.
BROWNING MAREAN
Partner
DLA Piper LLP (US)
DEENA COFFMAN
Discovery Director
Johnson & Johnson
GEORGE I. RUDOY
Director of Global Practice Technology & Information Services
Shearman & Sterling
PATRICK ZELLER
Associate General Counsel
Guidance Software Inc.
KEN WITHERS
Director, Judicial Education and Content
The Sedona Conference
Best Regards,
Patrick Oot
Friday, January 23, 2009
News analysis: Ediscovery - navigating through the digital maze
Not unlike explorers, lawyers also experience challenges in making their discoveries and within a decade firms have increasingly shunned paper-based discovery methods, in favour of electronic systems. Richard Szabo finds that ediscovery systems are capable of a lot more than just searching through documents.
Discovery can arguably represent a significant part of a legal matter. Just ten years ago a large discovery was considered to involve tens of thousands of documents, but nowadays a major discovery is considered to amount in the hundreds of thousands.
Allens Arthur Robinson director of applied legal technology Beth Patterson agrees that ediscovery is rapidly changing and there is an enormous amount of electronic data being created nowadays, particularly in emails.
Traditionally, firms would undertake paper-based discovery and this would involve dividing staff to search filing cabinets. However, nowadays firms are often dealing directly with client in-house counsel and IT departments to collect documents from their computer systems. "We helped our clients proactively prepare for ediscovery through utilising technology that searches and collects data on their IT systems. We use data maps, which allow them to quickly know where documents are, in the event of litigation," says Patterson.
Ediscovery software that firms are using
Allens uses Ringtail's Legal 2005, among others, for ediscovery, processing electronic data and reviewing. She says one of its benefits is increased efficiency for document reviewing by lawyers.
Apparently the software has saved the firm countless hours that would otherwise be spent sifting through client emails and other documents received over a period of many years, by filtering out irrelevant data. It also uses concept search process, which involves searching for relevancy rather than just keywords.
Lee Trevena of Synetek Systems says the average managing partner spends 90 minutes per week solely on managing email. However, firms can reduce this time by using Synetek's Mailrevive, which automatically indexes sent and received emails and does not require a lawyer to use folders.
To Continue Reading: Click Here------------------------------------------
Source: au.legalbusinessonline.com
It's official: White House says Obama to keep his BlackBerry
Its official, the blackberry/email addiction has spread to the highest levels of government.
President Barack Obama will indeed keep his beloved BlackBerry, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.
"He has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends in a way that use will be limited and security enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate, but to do so effectively and do so in a way that is protected," Gibbs said.
Obama has often been seen using his BlackBerry and has professed his attachment to it. But the technology community has wondered if he would continue using the device once he became president, since it isn't rated for the highest security standards approved by the government.
Gibbs would not say who exactly has been approved to communicate with Obama via his BlackBerry, but he said it was a small group of people. He also did not elaborate on the type of security enhancements added to the device.
Obama will undoubtedly be careful about what he types into the BlackBerry, however. "The presumption regarding those e-mails is that they're all subject to the Presidential Records Act," said Gibbs. The act requires presidents to preserve records and allow public access to them through the Freedom of Information Act.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Computerworld
By: Nancy Gohring
President Barack Obama will indeed keep his beloved BlackBerry, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.
"He has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends in a way that use will be limited and security enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate, but to do so effectively and do so in a way that is protected," Gibbs said.
Obama has often been seen using his BlackBerry and has professed his attachment to it. But the technology community has wondered if he would continue using the device once he became president, since it isn't rated for the highest security standards approved by the government.
Gibbs would not say who exactly has been approved to communicate with Obama via his BlackBerry, but he said it was a small group of people. He also did not elaborate on the type of security enhancements added to the device.
Obama will undoubtedly be careful about what he types into the BlackBerry, however. "The presumption regarding those e-mails is that they're all subject to the Presidential Records Act," said Gibbs. The act requires presidents to preserve records and allow public access to them through the Freedom of Information Act.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Computerworld
By: Nancy Gohring
Cloud Computing Gives E-Discovery a Lift
With the amount of infrastructure required to support e-discovery capabilities, firms are looking to cloud computing’s utility model as a way to rein in storage and retrieval costs while improving their regualtory response.
As the regulatory scrutiny on Wall Street intensifies, no company can afford to skimp on e-discovery capabilities. But few organizations can afford the enormous investment required to comply with e-discovery requirements. Some companies are finding a solution in the clouds.
"One of the key challenges of e-discovery is mining through huge amounts of information in an efficient manner," points out Rick Dales, the VP of product management at Proofpoint, a messaging security vendor that recently acquired Fortiva, which offers e-mail archiving services. Cloud computing is one way to improve the efficiency of the process, according to Dales, who notes that Fortiva's services combine an on-site appliance with cloud-based storage and management. "Companies aren't doing e-discovery every day," he says. "The amount of infrastructure you need to do this well is more than companies can justify. This way you can bring in all the computer power when needed, but as it's shared between customers it gives you less cost."
Getting on Regulators' Good Side
But more important than any efficiency play, suggests Tom Fread, director at broker-dealer Cowen & Co. and a Fortiva/Proofpoint client, is that "When regulators need to understand [our retention policies] and test them, I have access to a report catalog reflecting the archiving and supervision activities of the firm and addressing specific regulator concerns." The e-discovery cloud service "improves the firm's posture with the regulators tremendously," he adds.
Nonetheless Cowen & Co.'s decision to tap cloud computing for e-discovery was driven by a search for a hosted solution that offered lower cost of ownership. The company didn't have the appetite to manage the infrastructure necessary to adapt its supervisor record retention model to new teams, geographies and products, Fread relates.
Several capabilities led Cowen to select the Proofpoint solution, he continues. "We needed to make sure end-user archiving was a possibility, so we were looking for a solution that allowed us to grant employees access to their own archived communications," Fread says. "That is much more cost-effective than maintaining an employee archive in Outlook Exchange."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com
By Melanie Rodier
As the regulatory scrutiny on Wall Street intensifies, no company can afford to skimp on e-discovery capabilities. But few organizations can afford the enormous investment required to comply with e-discovery requirements. Some companies are finding a solution in the clouds.
"One of the key challenges of e-discovery is mining through huge amounts of information in an efficient manner," points out Rick Dales, the VP of product management at Proofpoint, a messaging security vendor that recently acquired Fortiva, which offers e-mail archiving services. Cloud computing is one way to improve the efficiency of the process, according to Dales, who notes that Fortiva's services combine an on-site appliance with cloud-based storage and management. "Companies aren't doing e-discovery every day," he says. "The amount of infrastructure you need to do this well is more than companies can justify. This way you can bring in all the computer power when needed, but as it's shared between customers it gives you less cost."
Getting on Regulators' Good Side
But more important than any efficiency play, suggests Tom Fread, director at broker-dealer Cowen & Co. and a Fortiva/Proofpoint client, is that "When regulators need to understand [our retention policies] and test them, I have access to a report catalog reflecting the archiving and supervision activities of the firm and addressing specific regulator concerns." The e-discovery cloud service "improves the firm's posture with the regulators tremendously," he adds.
Nonetheless Cowen & Co.'s decision to tap cloud computing for e-discovery was driven by a search for a hosted solution that offered lower cost of ownership. The company didn't have the appetite to manage the infrastructure necessary to adapt its supervisor record retention model to new teams, geographies and products, Fread relates.
Several capabilities led Cowen to select the Proofpoint solution, he continues. "We needed to make sure end-user archiving was a possibility, so we were looking for a solution that allowed us to grant employees access to their own archived communications," Fread says. "That is much more cost-effective than maintaining an employee archive in Outlook Exchange."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com
By Melanie Rodier
Sun Cloud CTO: 'Your Data Center Is Your Computer'
Lew Tucker has contributed to several waves of technology innovation over the last 20 years. Currently VP and CTO of cloud computing at Sun Microsystems (NSDQ: JAVA), Tucker started work on distributed computing in the mid-'80s as a research scientist and director of advanced development at Thinking Machines, working on machine vision and system architecture to create the massively parallel Connection Machine.
During a previous tenure at Sun Microsystems, Lew was an early member of the JavaSoft executive team driving developer adoption of the Java platform, and later became VP of Internet services, with overall responsibility for Sun's Internet sites and services. He left Sun to become a VP at Salesforce.com, where he created AppExchange, a SaaS platform for business applications, and then went on to be CTO at Radar Networks, a semantic-Web-based Internet service for tracking interests, before returning to Sun to lead its cloud computing efforts.In an exclusive interview with InformationWeek, Tucker said that Sun as a company had evolved its platform from a Unix, Solaris, and Java infrastructure without losing sight of the company's original vision, which is "the network is the computer."
"In cloud computing, 'the data center is the computer.' We see a future where there are a bunch of clouds, both public and private clouds, and companies will be able to build scalable apps that are self-provisioning. These apps will be able to scale up automatically where requesting resources will be done in a self-service fashion."
Tucker cited the example of the Animoto FaceBook app that ramped from 25,000 users to 250,000 users in three days -- scaling from 50 instances of EC2 usage up to 3,500 instances -- as an example of the type of massively scalable app that's possible in the cloud.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Lew Tucker
During a previous tenure at Sun Microsystems, Lew was an early member of the JavaSoft executive team driving developer adoption of the Java platform, and later became VP of Internet services, with overall responsibility for Sun's Internet sites and services. He left Sun to become a VP at Salesforce.com, where he created AppExchange, a SaaS platform for business applications, and then went on to be CTO at Radar Networks, a semantic-Web-based Internet service for tracking interests, before returning to Sun to lead its cloud computing efforts.In an exclusive interview with InformationWeek, Tucker said that Sun as a company had evolved its platform from a Unix, Solaris, and Java infrastructure without losing sight of the company's original vision, which is "the network is the computer."
"In cloud computing, 'the data center is the computer.' We see a future where there are a bunch of clouds, both public and private clouds, and companies will be able to build scalable apps that are self-provisioning. These apps will be able to scale up automatically where requesting resources will be done in a self-service fashion."
Tucker cited the example of the Animoto FaceBook app that ramped from 25,000 users to 250,000 users in three days -- scaling from 50 instances of EC2 usage up to 3,500 instances -- as an example of the type of massively scalable app that's possible in the cloud.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: Informationweek
By: Lew Tucker
Can Technology Thrive in a Bad Economy?
Optimism, a sense of urgency and a good sense of humor are essential attributes for legal technology professionals. Like never before, these traits are being tested by the current global economy crisis.
With top institutions crumbling daily, your team will look to you for leadership to keep your organization on course. What can you do to improve your resilience and ultimately thrive?
First and foremost, stay focused on the matters that are in your control. Acknowledge that there are many challenges in your organization where you cannot directly effect the outcome. Step back. Triage. Carefully plan your approach to events or items you influence or control.
One area could be your relationships with your clients.
Think about how you cultivate your relationships. Do you need to alter the frequency, the context and/or the methods you use to engage with your clients? Stay close, and take the time to understand what drives your clients and how you can assist them in their organizations' challenges. Listen to them carefully -- they may be facing unusual dilemmas during these unsettling times. If you haven't had face time with them in a while, it might be a good time to invite them to lunch or coffee.
BE THE DRIVER, NOT THE PASSENGER
As the Chinese proverb says, "Crisis is danger -- and opportunity." This may be a great time to huddle with your team, and generate a list of goals that can help your organization win work and cultivate relationships in the future.
If you are in a slow period, view it as an opportunity to do some of the projects that have been on hold for a while.
Create a "master non-billable activity list." Activities could include: reviving a client relationship; reviewing market tenders and requests for information, and preparing responses; or updating your standard response materials. Take advantage of lulls to enroll in long-delayed internal training programs.
Offer to deliver educational content, including continuing legal education, to clients -- and internally at your organization.
Evaluate items on the list to prioritize projects that have the potential to build client relationships and drive work to your business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By Michelle Mahoney & George Rudoy
With top institutions crumbling daily, your team will look to you for leadership to keep your organization on course. What can you do to improve your resilience and ultimately thrive?
First and foremost, stay focused on the matters that are in your control. Acknowledge that there are many challenges in your organization where you cannot directly effect the outcome. Step back. Triage. Carefully plan your approach to events or items you influence or control.
One area could be your relationships with your clients.
Think about how you cultivate your relationships. Do you need to alter the frequency, the context and/or the methods you use to engage with your clients? Stay close, and take the time to understand what drives your clients and how you can assist them in their organizations' challenges. Listen to them carefully -- they may be facing unusual dilemmas during these unsettling times. If you haven't had face time with them in a while, it might be a good time to invite them to lunch or coffee.
BE THE DRIVER, NOT THE PASSENGER
As the Chinese proverb says, "Crisis is danger -- and opportunity." This may be a great time to huddle with your team, and generate a list of goals that can help your organization win work and cultivate relationships in the future.
If you are in a slow period, view it as an opportunity to do some of the projects that have been on hold for a while.
Create a "master non-billable activity list." Activities could include: reviving a client relationship; reviewing market tenders and requests for information, and preparing responses; or updating your standard response materials. Take advantage of lulls to enroll in long-delayed internal training programs.
Offer to deliver educational content, including continuing legal education, to clients -- and internally at your organization.
Evaluate items on the list to prioritize projects that have the potential to build client relationships and drive work to your business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: Law.com
By Michelle Mahoney & George Rudoy
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Google, Cisco Systems and Lockheed Martin Share Insights at IQPC’s 7th eDiscovery Conference
Google Inc., Cisco Systems, and Lockheed Martin will join corporate counsel, judges and government at IQPC’s 7th eDiscovery conference, taking place April 27-29, 2009 at Le Meridien in San Francisco, CA.
The number of legal cases requiring eDiscovery is expected to rise in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn. The implications of these rulings may change the way eDiscovery is carried out within companies, highlighting the need for both the judicial and legal perspective to be transparent.
At the 7th eDiscovery conference, a panel of state and federal judges, will share judicial trends, expectations and implications. eDiscovery experts and in-house counsel from Fortune 1000 companies will examine the challenges of executing eDiscovery, including outsourcing, legal compliance, and risk reduction.
Featured speakers at the conference include:
The number of legal cases requiring eDiscovery is expected to rise in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn. The implications of these rulings may change the way eDiscovery is carried out within companies, highlighting the need for both the judicial and legal perspective to be transparent.
At the 7th eDiscovery conference, a panel of state and federal judges, will share judicial trends, expectations and implications. eDiscovery experts and in-house counsel from Fortune 1000 companies will examine the challenges of executing eDiscovery, including outsourcing, legal compliance, and risk reduction.
Featured speakers at the conference include:
- Theresa Beaumont, Discovery Counsel, Google, Inc.
- Cheryl Strom, Sr. Manager, Records Information Management, McDonald’s Corporation
- Mark E. Michels, Managing Attorney, Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Angeline Chen, Associate General Counsel, Lockheed Martin Inc.
- Scott T. Rickman, Associate General Counsel, Del Monte Foods
- Tanya Hunter, Director of eDiscovery, Intel Corporation
- David Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission
- Honorable Andrew J. Peck, U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, of Southern District of New York
- Honorable Richard Kramer, State Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: earthtimes.org
Storage Perspectives
The total cost of ownership of storage is a complicated thing to figure. The TCO includes a wide variety of factors, from purchase price to operational considerations to power usage to failure rate and much more. David Merrill, who was named chief storage economist at Hitachi Data Systems (HDS) last year, has come up with 33 costs that go into the TCO of storage. How many do you use when making a buying decision? And how do you factor in the cost of not making a change?
Most storage managers know that the purchase price of storage is a small piece of the overall TCO, but often that is the main consideration at many companies. And when the cost per terabyte keeps falling, it can look as if the IT department is saving money as it buys more capacity. Yet cutting the overall TCO is much more difficult. There are opportunities for cost reductions in each of the many factors that go into the overall cost of buying and operating storage systems. Merrill argues that storage managers serious about reducing overall costs need to define and measure current costs and then develop a strategic plan to reduce those costs.
Most storage vendors have TCO tools that are supposed to help customers or potential customers make buying decisions, but for the most part they are really tools for the sales department. Merrill acknowledges he developed his list of TCO factors to help HDS salespeople "not panic when they are losing on price. I teach them to tell potential customers that we may not have the cheapest system to buy, but they are cheaper to own."
He argues that purchase price is only about 20 percent of TCO and that the other 80 percent includes costs like maintenance, power and cooling, space, cost of disaster recovery, and many other factors. "I help them to make the argument that with Hitachi, your labor costs will be lower, your cost of waste will be lower, we will reduce your migration costs, the cost of copies, and more."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: byteandswitch.com
By: Paul Travis
Most storage managers know that the purchase price of storage is a small piece of the overall TCO, but often that is the main consideration at many companies. And when the cost per terabyte keeps falling, it can look as if the IT department is saving money as it buys more capacity. Yet cutting the overall TCO is much more difficult. There are opportunities for cost reductions in each of the many factors that go into the overall cost of buying and operating storage systems. Merrill argues that storage managers serious about reducing overall costs need to define and measure current costs and then develop a strategic plan to reduce those costs.
Most storage vendors have TCO tools that are supposed to help customers or potential customers make buying decisions, but for the most part they are really tools for the sales department. Merrill acknowledges he developed his list of TCO factors to help HDS salespeople "not panic when they are losing on price. I teach them to tell potential customers that we may not have the cheapest system to buy, but they are cheaper to own."
He argues that purchase price is only about 20 percent of TCO and that the other 80 percent includes costs like maintenance, power and cooling, space, cost of disaster recovery, and many other factors. "I help them to make the argument that with Hitachi, your labor costs will be lower, your cost of waste will be lower, we will reduce your migration costs, the cost of copies, and more."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: byteandswitch.com
By: Paul Travis
Q: Deleting data before donating?
Question: I have several old computers that I need to dispose of. Where do I do this and feel confident the info therein will be destroyed? - Toni
Answer: The reality of what makes a computer valuable (the data that's stored on it) becomes clearly obvious when you go to sell, donate or recycle it.
The 0's and 1's that make up your digitally stored information has an exponentially higher value, especially to identity thieves, than the old electronic components that make up the computer.
Once a computer that contains your personal information leaves your control, you have no idea what will happen to that information, so you should never take this task lightly.
The plethora of data that has been found on used equipment over the years has been chronicled time and again, but connecting the dots for non-technical users is often still a big mystery.
At the end of the day, you should take responsibility for protecting yourself or find a trusted resource that can properly remove your data for you.
As most folks now know, simply deleting a file does not remove it from the computer's hard drive; it simply hides it from the operating system (Windows or MacOS) and the user.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: KTAR.com
Answer: The reality of what makes a computer valuable (the data that's stored on it) becomes clearly obvious when you go to sell, donate or recycle it.
The 0's and 1's that make up your digitally stored information has an exponentially higher value, especially to identity thieves, than the old electronic components that make up the computer.
Once a computer that contains your personal information leaves your control, you have no idea what will happen to that information, so you should never take this task lightly.
The plethora of data that has been found on used equipment over the years has been chronicled time and again, but connecting the dots for non-technical users is often still a big mystery.
At the end of the day, you should take responsibility for protecting yourself or find a trusted resource that can properly remove your data for you.
As most folks now know, simply deleting a file does not remove it from the computer's hard drive; it simply hides it from the operating system (Windows or MacOS) and the user.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
---------------------------------------------
Source: KTAR.com
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Not Only the President Faces a BlackBerry Challenge
That's me in the corner,
that's me in the spotlight --
losing my religion,
trying to keep up with you and I don't know if I can do it;
oh no, I've said too much,
I haven't said enough.
-- R.E.M., "Losing My Religion" 1991.
In today's BlackBerry-driven, online business world, losing one's e-mail -- and access to other online forms of communication -- has to be worse than R.E.M.'s fear of losing one's religion.
Yet that is just the fate that may await our President, who already publicly confessed (on national television, no less, though you can certainly find the story on the Internet) his steadfast inability to shake his smoking addiction under the stress of a Presidential campaign. As has been widely reported, President Barack Obama may have to give up the e-mail he constantly retrieves from the BlackBerry that was a ubiquitous companion during the 2008 campaign (See, "Lose the BlackBerry, Yes He Can, Maybe" and "Obama: A Lot Keeps Me Up at Night"). One Canadian wag, writing in Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper, even called it "one of his dearest friends, the lifeline that helped him power his way to the driver's seat of the United States." But his friend may be banned, or greatly restricted, in the White House.
NOT NEW BEHAVIOR, BUT A NEW FRONTIER
Although there are many reasons for the ban, for security and federal record keeping, Mr. Obama is not an agent of "change" on the BlackBerry front. An e-mail-free President Obama would mirror an early decision of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who wrote to 42 friends and relatives from his pre-Presidential e-mail account: "Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace. This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you" ("Obama Faces BlackBerry Withdrawl" ). Similarly, Bill Clinton had to make the same decision, albeit perhaps while feeling less pain in the pre-BlackBerry era.
Of course, the same security concerns that plague everyone who orders online are magnified a bit when the information being transmitted affects national security and world affairs; with Mr. Obama, we're not talking "just" a Social Security or credit card number. With foreign powers and terrorists alike increasingly turning to cyberwarfare, certainly no one wants to make the world's most appealing target any more vulnerable to foreign innovators -- especially in an era when so much cutting-edge technology and hacking originates overseas. Leading Internet security experts agree with that logic, and employees of a major U.S. telecommunications firm couldn't pass up the challenge of hacking the President. In this instance, some Verizon Wireless workers apparently got into some account information for a "flip" cell phone the President once owned. That he now uses a BlackBerry doesn't put such hacking worries to rest.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Stanley P. Jaskiewicz
that's me in the spotlight --
losing my religion,
trying to keep up with you and I don't know if I can do it;
oh no, I've said too much,
I haven't said enough.
-- R.E.M., "Losing My Religion" 1991.
In today's BlackBerry-driven, online business world, losing one's e-mail -- and access to other online forms of communication -- has to be worse than R.E.M.'s fear of losing one's religion.
Yet that is just the fate that may await our President, who already publicly confessed (on national television, no less, though you can certainly find the story on the Internet) his steadfast inability to shake his smoking addiction under the stress of a Presidential campaign. As has been widely reported, President Barack Obama may have to give up the e-mail he constantly retrieves from the BlackBerry that was a ubiquitous companion during the 2008 campaign (See, "Lose the BlackBerry, Yes He Can, Maybe" and "Obama: A Lot Keeps Me Up at Night"). One Canadian wag, writing in Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper, even called it "one of his dearest friends, the lifeline that helped him power his way to the driver's seat of the United States." But his friend may be banned, or greatly restricted, in the White House.
NOT NEW BEHAVIOR, BUT A NEW FRONTIER
Although there are many reasons for the ban, for security and federal record keeping, Mr. Obama is not an agent of "change" on the BlackBerry front. An e-mail-free President Obama would mirror an early decision of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who wrote to 42 friends and relatives from his pre-Presidential e-mail account: "Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace. This saddens me. I have enjoyed conversing with each of you" ("Obama Faces BlackBerry Withdrawl" ). Similarly, Bill Clinton had to make the same decision, albeit perhaps while feeling less pain in the pre-BlackBerry era.
Of course, the same security concerns that plague everyone who orders online are magnified a bit when the information being transmitted affects national security and world affairs; with Mr. Obama, we're not talking "just" a Social Security or credit card number. With foreign powers and terrorists alike increasingly turning to cyberwarfare, certainly no one wants to make the world's most appealing target any more vulnerable to foreign innovators -- especially in an era when so much cutting-edge technology and hacking originates overseas. Leading Internet security experts agree with that logic, and employees of a major U.S. telecommunications firm couldn't pass up the challenge of hacking the President. In this instance, some Verizon Wireless workers apparently got into some account information for a "flip" cell phone the President once owned. That he now uses a BlackBerry doesn't put such hacking worries to rest.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Stanley P. Jaskiewicz
File Not Found? Enter Computer Forensics
Computer forensics can bring up data the other side tried to hide
Hawaiian Airlines Inc. execs were suspicious when in 2005 Mesa Air Group, Inc., began offering low-cost interisland flights in the state. It was just over a year since Hawaiian and competitor Aloha Air had been in bankruptcy, and Mesa looked at both as potential acquisitions. Mesa's CFO George Murnane had signed a nondisclosure agreement with Hawaiian, including provisions that the Arizona-based carrier would not, for at least two years, use any information gotten through due diligence "to obtain any competitive advantage," should an acquisition not take place.
The Mesa flights "raised some questions in people's minds of, 'Gee, did they improperly use information [to set up their own airline]?'" says Hawaiian general counsel Hoyt Zia.
And then, in January 2006, came the smoking gun. In answering an analyst's question during a conference call, Mesa CEO Jonathan Orenstein said that his team had considered interisland flights with "the benefit of looking at both Aloha and Hawaii [sic] when they're in bankruptcy." Not a smart thing to admit publicly. And equally foolish, when Hawaiian filed suit, was when Murnane used a software application to wipe any traces of some files from his computer -- long after Mesa was to have turned over any files and documents.
What Murnane didn't realize was that as commonplace as PCs are, their inner workings are unknown to most people -- except to a select few who know how to pry their secrets out of them. Hawaiian's outside counsel, Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, brought in computer forensics experts who determined that a number of computers had been similarly tampered with. Because the judge ruled that there had been spoliation of evidence, Hawaiian established the liability component of its case, and an eventual $80 million settlement.
"I don't want to say anything bad about [Mesa's] lawyers, but it seemed to me that they were behind the curve both on what an employee could do to hide or destroy evidence and the forensic tools that are available to uncover the activity that has happened," says Hennigan partner Dana Hobart.
To Continue Reading: Click Here------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Erik Sherman
Monday, January 19, 2009
United States: E-Discovery: Can´t We All Just Get Along?
Here's the "Grimm" news: Parties and counsel must cooperate when it comes to e-discovery in civil litigation. Judge Paul W. Grimm, of the United States District Court of Maryland, while handling a discovery dispute in the recent case of Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., has taken the opportunity to pontificate as to why working together collaboratively is essential for e-discovery to be meaningful and fair within our judicial system.
While the particular discovery dispute in the Mancia case is not so noteworthy, Judge Grimm's broad vision of e-discovery certainly is worthy of consideration. Judge Grimm begins by looking to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(g).
That rule requires that an attorney of record sign every discovery disclosure, request, response or objection. The attorney's signature "certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry," the request is reasonable and the disclosure is complete and correct. Judge Grimm expresses concern that counsel do not necessarily perform a "reasonable inquiry" before propounding and responding to discovery requests.
Judges in other cases have required at a minimum that outside counsel interview information technology employees and custodians of records to determine and understand where responsive electronic data is stored. Without conducting such an investigation, an attorney cannot fully certify a discovery response, for example.
Too often, attorneys, in shoot-from-the-hip fashion, propound broad discovery requests and respond with boilerplate objections to discovery requests. Indeed, Judge Grimm was dealing with just that scenario in the Mancia case, which is what prompted his cooperation tutorial.
Importantly, FRCP 26(g) requires the imposition of mandatory sanctions when the rule is violated without substantial justification; indeed, judges are entitled to issue sanctions even when not requested on a motion. Rule 26(g), according to Judge Grimm, is one of the least abided discovery rules. And that is because sanctions have not been routinely and automatically applied by judges when violations occur.
Thus, while counsel, on behalf of their clients, do not always conduct reasonable inquiries when it comes to e-discovery, the judiciary is complicit in the problem, by not issuing sanctions for violations. Without the real threat of sanctions, improper e-discovery requests and responses will continue and threaten the integrity of the judicial system.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: mondaq.com
By: Eric J. Sinrod
While the particular discovery dispute in the Mancia case is not so noteworthy, Judge Grimm's broad vision of e-discovery certainly is worthy of consideration. Judge Grimm begins by looking to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(g).
That rule requires that an attorney of record sign every discovery disclosure, request, response or objection. The attorney's signature "certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry," the request is reasonable and the disclosure is complete and correct. Judge Grimm expresses concern that counsel do not necessarily perform a "reasonable inquiry" before propounding and responding to discovery requests.
Judges in other cases have required at a minimum that outside counsel interview information technology employees and custodians of records to determine and understand where responsive electronic data is stored. Without conducting such an investigation, an attorney cannot fully certify a discovery response, for example.
Too often, attorneys, in shoot-from-the-hip fashion, propound broad discovery requests and respond with boilerplate objections to discovery requests. Indeed, Judge Grimm was dealing with just that scenario in the Mancia case, which is what prompted his cooperation tutorial.
Importantly, FRCP 26(g) requires the imposition of mandatory sanctions when the rule is violated without substantial justification; indeed, judges are entitled to issue sanctions even when not requested on a motion. Rule 26(g), according to Judge Grimm, is one of the least abided discovery rules. And that is because sanctions have not been routinely and automatically applied by judges when violations occur.
Thus, while counsel, on behalf of their clients, do not always conduct reasonable inquiries when it comes to e-discovery, the judiciary is complicit in the problem, by not issuing sanctions for violations. Without the real threat of sanctions, improper e-discovery requests and responses will continue and threaten the integrity of the judicial system.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: mondaq.com
By: Eric J. Sinrod
FBI late on Fumo e-mails
When FBI agent Vicki Humphreys arrived at former state Sen. Vince Fumo's Tasker Street office to serve a search warrant on Feb. 18, 2005, she said that she discovered that a sophisticated "wipe" was in progress on the computer of aide Leonard P. Luchko, who had already left the office.
Agents immediately powered the computer down, Humphreys said.
A computer technician for Fumo, Luchko was later arrested, in May 2006, at his home on conspiracy and obstruction charges. (He pleaded guilty in August 2008, and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.)
Prosecutors say that much of the electronic evidence in the case was wiped - or destroyed using sophisticated software that erases all traces of e-mails and other documents - before Humphreys arrived.
Fumo was indicted in February 2007 on 139 counts of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice and related tax offenses. (Luchko and two other aides also were charged in the case.)
Humphreys, expected to complete testimony next week, was the 77th and final witness that prosecutors planned to call at Fumo's three-month trial.
Humphreys said that the focus of the probe, which began in February 2003, concerned spending by a nonprofit that Fumo founded, Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, and whether Fumo had extorted money from Peco Energy and Verizon.
Peco gave $17 million to Citizens Alliance to settle a legal dispute with Fumo over the energy company's deregulation in 1998.
A former president of Verizon's Pennsylvania operations testified earlier this month that Fumo had sought $50 million in contributions from the phone giant to settle a regulatory dispute. (Verizon refused most of Fumo's demands.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: philly.com
By: Michael Hinkelman
Agents immediately powered the computer down, Humphreys said.
A computer technician for Fumo, Luchko was later arrested, in May 2006, at his home on conspiracy and obstruction charges. (He pleaded guilty in August 2008, and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.)
Prosecutors say that much of the electronic evidence in the case was wiped - or destroyed using sophisticated software that erases all traces of e-mails and other documents - before Humphreys arrived.
Fumo was indicted in February 2007 on 139 counts of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice and related tax offenses. (Luchko and two other aides also were charged in the case.)
Humphreys, expected to complete testimony next week, was the 77th and final witness that prosecutors planned to call at Fumo's three-month trial.
Humphreys said that the focus of the probe, which began in February 2003, concerned spending by a nonprofit that Fumo founded, Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods, and whether Fumo had extorted money from Peco Energy and Verizon.
Peco gave $17 million to Citizens Alliance to settle a legal dispute with Fumo over the energy company's deregulation in 1998.
A former president of Verizon's Pennsylvania operations testified earlier this month that Fumo had sought $50 million in contributions from the phone giant to settle a regulatory dispute. (Verizon refused most of Fumo's demands.)
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: philly.com
By: Michael Hinkelman
In W.H., Obama staff will say cu l8r 2 im
Barack Obama may get to keep his Blackberry, but David Axelrod is losing his IM.
The lawyers broke the bad news to Obama aides at a briefing Friday morning convened by incoming Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts: Not only are they leaving the modern world to enter a White House where some of the clunky desktop computers still run Windows 2000 but—worst of all—they'll be forced to surrender a form of communication staffers have relied on for the last two years to communicate with each other, outside allies, and the press.
From Axelrod, the chief campaign strategist, down to junior staffers in the press office, Obama's campaign relied heavily on software many of them began using in high school—AOL Instant Message and Google Chat. Instant messaging, though little mentioned, is—perhaps as much as email—deeply woven into contemporary politics and media, whose fabric is the constant, quick, gossipy transmission of spin and information. But a calculus that's perhaps one part security, one part law, and two parts politics, has long barred instant messaging from the White House.
"They just told us flat out we couldn't IM in the White House," groused one senior staffer Friday.
"It sucks. It's really going to slow us down," complained another, saying that lawyers had warned that, along with Instant Messaging, White House software will restrict users to a range of sites roughly "like your average grade school.
"The clunky technology is standard issue for government offices, but the bar on instant messaging is particular to the White House. Legal and security experts say it is dictated by the fear of embarrassment if IMs were to be disclosed. The Presidential Records Act requires White House documents to become public five years after a president leaves office, and most lawyers think it would apply to any instant messages discussing government business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: mlive.com
The lawyers broke the bad news to Obama aides at a briefing Friday morning convened by incoming Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts: Not only are they leaving the modern world to enter a White House where some of the clunky desktop computers still run Windows 2000 but—worst of all—they'll be forced to surrender a form of communication staffers have relied on for the last two years to communicate with each other, outside allies, and the press.
From Axelrod, the chief campaign strategist, down to junior staffers in the press office, Obama's campaign relied heavily on software many of them began using in high school—AOL Instant Message and Google Chat. Instant messaging, though little mentioned, is—perhaps as much as email—deeply woven into contemporary politics and media, whose fabric is the constant, quick, gossipy transmission of spin and information. But a calculus that's perhaps one part security, one part law, and two parts politics, has long barred instant messaging from the White House.
"They just told us flat out we couldn't IM in the White House," groused one senior staffer Friday.
"It sucks. It's really going to slow us down," complained another, saying that lawyers had warned that, along with Instant Messaging, White House software will restrict users to a range of sites roughly "like your average grade school.
"The clunky technology is standard issue for government offices, but the bar on instant messaging is particular to the White House. Legal and security experts say it is dictated by the fear of embarrassment if IMs were to be disclosed. The Presidential Records Act requires White House documents to become public five years after a president leaves office, and most lawyers think it would apply to any instant messages discussing government business.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: mlive.com
Friday, January 16, 2009
"Since Both Parties Went Through the Same Stop Sign...They Both Should Pay for the Crash": Court Orders Parties to Split Cost of Privilege Review
Covad Comm. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2008 WL 5377698 (D.D.C. Dec. 24, 2008)
In this case arising from claims of misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information, plaintiff filed a motion to compel following a disagreement regarding the proper format of production of electronically stored information. The defendant argued that because the plaintiff failed to specify a format of production, hard copy or .TIFF images were appropriate. The plaintiff insisted on production in native format. The court, indicating its displeasure with both parties, ordered production of the documents in their native format, but ordered the parties to split the cost of the necessary privilege review.
Following plaintiff’s initial requests for production, defendant advised that it had retained an “outside consultant to assist in collecting electronic documents…” Thereafter, defendant advised plaintiff that responsive documents were available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Following plaintiff’s insistence that the documents be produced, defendant once again offered to make 35,000 pages of email available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Weeks later, defendant offered to make the emails available as TIFF files, but only if plaintiff was willing to pay for the necessary deletions of non-responsive and privileged materials. The parties could not agree and sought judicial intervention.
The court’s analysis began with the observation that absent a discussion between the parties regarding production, both seemed to be making assumptions based on the other’s behavior, i.e., plaintiff’s expectation of electronic production was based on defendant’s retention of outside consultant to collect its electronic information, and defendant’s expectation of production in hard copy was based on plaintiff’s production in that format. The court then noted that the parties had invited him to look to the language of the request to determine the appropriate format of production.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source ediscoverylaw.com
In this case arising from claims of misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information, plaintiff filed a motion to compel following a disagreement regarding the proper format of production of electronically stored information. The defendant argued that because the plaintiff failed to specify a format of production, hard copy or .TIFF images were appropriate. The plaintiff insisted on production in native format. The court, indicating its displeasure with both parties, ordered production of the documents in their native format, but ordered the parties to split the cost of the necessary privilege review.
Following plaintiff’s initial requests for production, defendant advised that it had retained an “outside consultant to assist in collecting electronic documents…” Thereafter, defendant advised plaintiff that responsive documents were available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Following plaintiff’s insistence that the documents be produced, defendant once again offered to make 35,000 pages of email available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Weeks later, defendant offered to make the emails available as TIFF files, but only if plaintiff was willing to pay for the necessary deletions of non-responsive and privileged materials. The parties could not agree and sought judicial intervention.
The court’s analysis began with the observation that absent a discussion between the parties regarding production, both seemed to be making assumptions based on the other’s behavior, i.e., plaintiff’s expectation of electronic production was based on defendant’s retention of outside consultant to collect its electronic information, and defendant’s expectation of production in hard copy was based on plaintiff’s production in that format. The court then noted that the parties had invited him to look to the language of the request to determine the appropriate format of production.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source ediscoverylaw.com
Destruction of Documents Pursuant to Document Retention Policy Results in Dispositive Sanctions Where Policy was Created as Part of Litigation Strateg
Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2009 WL 54887 (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009)
In this case arising from Micron’s alleged infringement of Rambus’ patents, a bench trial was held on the issue of Rambus’ alleged spoliation of relevant documents pursuant to a document retention policy it had recently implemented. The court ruled that Rambus had intentionally spoliated documents in bad faith. As a sanction, the court declared the patents in suit unenforceable against Micron.
The actions resulting in sanctions in this case took place over a number of years, beginning in 1990 when Rambus filed a patent application containing its DRAM (dynamic random access memory) inventions. In the following years, as the patents were issued and Rambus became more involved in the industry, suspicions grew that other DRAM manufacturers were infringing on Rambus technology to develop competing products. Accordingly, Rambus developed a strategy to force suspected infringers to license Rambus’ technology with a high royalty or be sued.
Over the years, Rambus took significant steps toward the implementation of its licensing and litigation strategy. Substantial portions of that strategy were developed and carried out by Rambus’ VP of Intellectual Property, Joel Karp, who was hired in 1997 to work on the licensing program pursuant to the identified strategy.
In January 1998, Rambus CEO, Geoff Tate, instructed Karp to prepare a presentation for the Board of Directors discussing, inter alia, a licensing framework and a litigation strategy. In preparation, Karp met with litigation counsel. Notes from that meeting indicated Rambus’ desire to work out a strategy to “go in quickly [and] proceed to either license or litigation.” The notes contained several mentions of a “litigation strategy” and readiness for litigation. Subsequent meetings included a “claim chart” prepared by Karp outlining his evidence of alleged infringement and discussions of specific next steps, including “gathering critical documents and implementing a document retention policy.” The court’s footnotes indicate Karp’s characterization of a document retention policy as making Rambus “battle ready.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
In this case arising from Micron’s alleged infringement of Rambus’ patents, a bench trial was held on the issue of Rambus’ alleged spoliation of relevant documents pursuant to a document retention policy it had recently implemented. The court ruled that Rambus had intentionally spoliated documents in bad faith. As a sanction, the court declared the patents in suit unenforceable against Micron.
The actions resulting in sanctions in this case took place over a number of years, beginning in 1990 when Rambus filed a patent application containing its DRAM (dynamic random access memory) inventions. In the following years, as the patents were issued and Rambus became more involved in the industry, suspicions grew that other DRAM manufacturers were infringing on Rambus technology to develop competing products. Accordingly, Rambus developed a strategy to force suspected infringers to license Rambus’ technology with a high royalty or be sued.
Over the years, Rambus took significant steps toward the implementation of its licensing and litigation strategy. Substantial portions of that strategy were developed and carried out by Rambus’ VP of Intellectual Property, Joel Karp, who was hired in 1997 to work on the licensing program pursuant to the identified strategy.
In January 1998, Rambus CEO, Geoff Tate, instructed Karp to prepare a presentation for the Board of Directors discussing, inter alia, a licensing framework and a litigation strategy. In preparation, Karp met with litigation counsel. Notes from that meeting indicated Rambus’ desire to work out a strategy to “go in quickly [and] proceed to either license or litigation.” The notes contained several mentions of a “litigation strategy” and readiness for litigation. Subsequent meetings included a “claim chart” prepared by Karp outlining his evidence of alleged infringement and discussions of specific next steps, including “gathering critical documents and implementing a document retention policy.” The court’s footnotes indicate Karp’s characterization of a document retention policy as making Rambus “battle ready.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
Rule 34: A Cause for Confusion
The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided some clarity with respect to electronically stored information. However, Rule 34 remains muddled. Courts and commentators have proffered differing interpretations, leaving litigators to struggle with two questions: 1) Does Rule 34 itself, without more, require the production of metadata? 2) Does a requesting party have to specifically request metadata before a responding party can be compelled to produce it?
In 2005, the District of Kansas in Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co. ("Williams I"), 230 F.R.D. 640, 646-57 (D. Kan. 2005) relied on the 2005 Sedona Principles to conclude that there was "a general presumption against the production of metadata," but was careful to note the exception that metadata should be produced when the producing party is aware -- or should be reasonably aware -- that it is relevant to the dispute.
The Williams I court held that "when a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order."
Several courts have cited Williams I for the proposition that emerging standards of EDD convey a general presumption against metadata production -- but those cases have not referenced Williams I for its more restrictive holding, which has been expressly rejected by the Eastern District of Kentucky in Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. National Ass'n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., No. 05-138-WOB, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006). That court specifically rejected the Williams I conclusion, stating that neither default form of production under Rule 34 is intended to mandate production of metadata or embedded data.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon Kirk & Kathryn Hong
In 2005, the District of Kansas in Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co. ("Williams I"), 230 F.R.D. 640, 646-57 (D. Kan. 2005) relied on the 2005 Sedona Principles to conclude that there was "a general presumption against the production of metadata," but was careful to note the exception that metadata should be produced when the producing party is aware -- or should be reasonably aware -- that it is relevant to the dispute.
The Williams I court held that "when a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order."
Several courts have cited Williams I for the proposition that emerging standards of EDD convey a general presumption against metadata production -- but those cases have not referenced Williams I for its more restrictive holding, which has been expressly rejected by the Eastern District of Kentucky in Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. National Ass'n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., No. 05-138-WOB, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006). That court specifically rejected the Williams I conclusion, stating that neither default form of production under Rule 34 is intended to mandate production of metadata or embedded data.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Shannon Kirk & Kathryn Hong
Interest Grows in Email Archiving Services
More companies are looking at email archiving services to relieve overburdened IT staff or get more features than they can afford to buy with tight budgets
Like other segments of the software market, there is movement in email archiving to offer archiving services as a replacement for or a companion to traditional archiving systems. These services are usually offered under the SaaS, or software-as-a-service, label. And there is growing interest in these archiving services among companies that are looking to relieve overburdened IT staff or those that are seeking more features and functionality than they can afford to buy with tight budgets for new technology systems.
"Small and medium-sized businesses are becoming more interested in email archiving services, and SaaS is a good option for them," says Michael Osterman, principal analyst with Osterman Research , which expects these services to account for about two thirds of total archiving market revenues of $1.5 billion in 2011, compared to about one third of a $609 million market in 2008.
The rising interest has attracted a variety of outsourcers, service providers, and other vendors. Autonomy Corp. , Dell Inc. (Nasdaq: DELL), Global Relay, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), LiveOffice LLC , Mimecast, and Proofpoint Inc. are among the firms delivering these services. The number of options is expected to rise as message security service providers, Microsoft Exchange managed service suppliers, and online backup companies increasingly view archiving as a natural addition to their service menu.
There are a number of reasons why businesses and other enterprises are moving to SaaS offerings. First, these services offer companies the potential to save money. Paying a monthly charge will be less costly upfront -- and in some cases throughout the life of the service -- than purchasing email archiving software and servers. Reduced staffing is a related potential benefit. Companies will not have to hire IT staff to run the email archiving system and can hand that task off to a third party. In some cases, companies started out managing an email archive themselves and later decided to hand that task over to someone else.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: byteandswitch.com
By: Paul Korzeniowski
Like other segments of the software market, there is movement in email archiving to offer archiving services as a replacement for or a companion to traditional archiving systems. These services are usually offered under the SaaS, or software-as-a-service, label. And there is growing interest in these archiving services among companies that are looking to relieve overburdened IT staff or those that are seeking more features and functionality than they can afford to buy with tight budgets for new technology systems.
"Small and medium-sized businesses are becoming more interested in email archiving services, and SaaS is a good option for them," says Michael Osterman, principal analyst with Osterman Research , which expects these services to account for about two thirds of total archiving market revenues of $1.5 billion in 2011, compared to about one third of a $609 million market in 2008.
The rising interest has attracted a variety of outsourcers, service providers, and other vendors. Autonomy Corp. , Dell Inc. (Nasdaq: DELL), Global Relay, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), LiveOffice LLC , Mimecast, and Proofpoint Inc. are among the firms delivering these services. The number of options is expected to rise as message security service providers, Microsoft Exchange managed service suppliers, and online backup companies increasingly view archiving as a natural addition to their service menu.
There are a number of reasons why businesses and other enterprises are moving to SaaS offerings. First, these services offer companies the potential to save money. Paying a monthly charge will be less costly upfront -- and in some cases throughout the life of the service -- than purchasing email archiving software and servers. Reduced staffing is a related potential benefit. Companies will not have to hire IT staff to run the email archiving system and can hand that task off to a third party. In some cases, companies started out managing an email archive themselves and later decided to hand that task over to someone else.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: byteandswitch.com
By: Paul Korzeniowski
The $6 Million Mistake
A recent court ruling shows how easy -- and expensive -- it can be to screw up the e-discovery process.
Attorney Ralph Losey writes a detailed analysis of a recent case that demonstrates the perils of e-discovery. I've summarized here, but check out the post for the full details.
A government agency was compelled to spend $6 million on an e-discovery exercise for a case in which it wasn't even a party. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was subpoenaed for documents in litigation involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
While the subpoena isn't unusual, the cost associated with the search was -- $6 million, which OFHEO says was 9% of its total yearly budget!
Apparently a trial lawyer for OFHEO agreed to an e-discovery search of backup tapes to find relevant information. Unfortunately, that lawyer also agreed to let the plaintiffs define the search terms -- big mistake! At the very least, OFHEO should have demanded the right to negotiate the search terms with the plaintiffs. Otherwise, they risked having to collect a ton of material, much of which would likely prove irrelevant.
And that's just what happened. The plaintiffs came up with 400 search terms, which yielded about 660,000 documents. In addition to bearing the IT costs of having to restore and search the backup tapes, the OFHEO then had to hire 50 contract lawyers to go through all those documents to find responsive material.
OFHEO ran into delays and missed more than one court-ordered deadline to produce the relevant information. Eventually the plaintiffs asked the court to sanction OFHEO for contempt, which it did.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source informationweek.com
By: Andrew Conry-Murray
Attorney Ralph Losey writes a detailed analysis of a recent case that demonstrates the perils of e-discovery. I've summarized here, but check out the post for the full details.
A government agency was compelled to spend $6 million on an e-discovery exercise for a case in which it wasn't even a party. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was subpoenaed for documents in litigation involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
While the subpoena isn't unusual, the cost associated with the search was -- $6 million, which OFHEO says was 9% of its total yearly budget!
Apparently a trial lawyer for OFHEO agreed to an e-discovery search of backup tapes to find relevant information. Unfortunately, that lawyer also agreed to let the plaintiffs define the search terms -- big mistake! At the very least, OFHEO should have demanded the right to negotiate the search terms with the plaintiffs. Otherwise, they risked having to collect a ton of material, much of which would likely prove irrelevant.
And that's just what happened. The plaintiffs came up with 400 search terms, which yielded about 660,000 documents. In addition to bearing the IT costs of having to restore and search the backup tapes, the OFHEO then had to hire 50 contract lawyers to go through all those documents to find responsive material.
OFHEO ran into delays and missed more than one court-ordered deadline to produce the relevant information. Eventually the plaintiffs asked the court to sanction OFHEO for contempt, which it did.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source informationweek.com
By: Andrew Conry-Murray
Court Rules That Metadata Aren't Public Records
A divided Arizona appellate court ruled Tuesday that hidden electronic data that indicates how and when documents are produced with word processing computer programs aren't themselves public records.
The three-judge Court of Appeals panel's majority opinion rejected a dissenting judge's argument that a Phoenix police officer was entitled to "metadata" for notes written by a supervisor of the officer.
Metadata is data embedded in documents to track authors, when something was saved and what changes were made. Metadata isn't visible when a document is printed on paper nor does it appear on screen in normal settings.
The officer, David Lake, said he wanted the notes' metadata to see if the supervisor had backdated the notes to prior to Lake being demoted.
The majority said Arizona's public records law doesn't define public records but that metadata doesn't satisfy a three-pronged test set by a 1952 Arizona Supreme Court decision to determine whether documents are public records subject to mandatory disclosure upon request.
Applying the test, the opinion said metadata was produced only as a byproduct of a public officer's performance of his duty, its creation or preservation wasn't required by law and because the public transaction being recorded was production of the supervisor's notes, not the metadata, the opinion said.
"We do not question that metadata may contain valuable information, but we reject Lake's contention that electronic evidence is legally equivalent to a public record," Judge Michael J. Brown wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark Gerow
The three-judge Court of Appeals panel's majority opinion rejected a dissenting judge's argument that a Phoenix police officer was entitled to "metadata" for notes written by a supervisor of the officer.
Metadata is data embedded in documents to track authors, when something was saved and what changes were made. Metadata isn't visible when a document is printed on paper nor does it appear on screen in normal settings.
The officer, David Lake, said he wanted the notes' metadata to see if the supervisor had backdated the notes to prior to Lake being demoted.
The majority said Arizona's public records law doesn't define public records but that metadata doesn't satisfy a three-pronged test set by a 1952 Arizona Supreme Court decision to determine whether documents are public records subject to mandatory disclosure upon request.
Applying the test, the opinion said metadata was produced only as a byproduct of a public officer's performance of his duty, its creation or preservation wasn't required by law and because the public transaction being recorded was production of the supervisor's notes, not the metadata, the opinion said.
"We do not question that metadata may contain valuable information, but we reject Lake's contention that electronic evidence is legally equivalent to a public record," Judge Michael J. Brown wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark Gerow
Women in eDiscovery and National Association for Women Lawyers Host Charity Event in New York City
Women in eDiscovery (WiE), a non-profit organization committed to providing information and education as a public service to the legal community, and the National Association for Women Lawyers (NAWL) today announced a new fundraising event for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure. In 2008, Women in eDiscovery raised more than $52,000 across six chapters. Participants: Open to AllDate: Monday, February 2, 2009Time: 6:00 PM – 8:00 PMLocation: Hilton New York Hotel, Concourse AFood and Beverages: Sponsored by Navigant Consulting, Digital Mandate and Wave SoftwareSuggested Donation: $25.00 donation To register for the charity event, either 1) Donate online prior to the event at www.komendonations.org/goto/womeninediscovery which will automatically add you to the registration list, or 2) email charity@womeninediscovery.com with your RSVP.
All proceeds benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure and National Philanthropic Trust, which funds important breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment. There will be breast cancer items for sale at the event. “I was inspired by the fundraising efforts our group put forth last year. It is important to start 2009 with more success and there really isn’t a better venue to do that than at the Hilton New York,” stated Shawnna Childress, Co-founder and Worldwide Executive Director of Women in eDiscovery. “Our women are very strong; we like to forge change. Not only does our group share in the benefits of leveraging relationships and learning from each other, we also reach beyond our group and have the ability to make other people’s lives better through our fundraising efforts with Susan G. Komen.”Annette Knitter, Assistant Executive Director of the National Association of Women Lawyers said, "Many women in our association have been touched by or affected by breast cancer through someone close to them, a colleague, a friend, or even them-selves. NAWL is committed to creating a better environment for women in all aspects of their lives. We are proud to co-sponsor this event for Susan G. Komen to aid in funding more breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: minneapolis.dbusinessnews.com
All proceeds benefit Susan G. Komen for the Cure and National Philanthropic Trust, which funds important breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment. There will be breast cancer items for sale at the event. “I was inspired by the fundraising efforts our group put forth last year. It is important to start 2009 with more success and there really isn’t a better venue to do that than at the Hilton New York,” stated Shawnna Childress, Co-founder and Worldwide Executive Director of Women in eDiscovery. “Our women are very strong; we like to forge change. Not only does our group share in the benefits of leveraging relationships and learning from each other, we also reach beyond our group and have the ability to make other people’s lives better through our fundraising efforts with Susan G. Komen.”Annette Knitter, Assistant Executive Director of the National Association of Women Lawyers said, "Many women in our association have been touched by or affected by breast cancer through someone close to them, a colleague, a friend, or even them-selves. NAWL is committed to creating a better environment for women in all aspects of their lives. We are proud to co-sponsor this event for Susan G. Komen to aid in funding more breast cancer research, education, screening and treatment."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: minneapolis.dbusinessnews.com
Build a Better Client-and-Matter Search
In the spirit of the New Year, I hereby predict that we have begun the third year of the "Year of Enterprise Search" which, due to the tremendous rate of innovation, will only last a total of five. We are now at the stage where search platforms include all the building blocks to create a truly user-friendly and effective search experience. In years four and five, the distinction between desktop and enterprise search will blur, and the need to understand concepts such as protocol handlers, incremental or full crawls, keywords or Boolean search expressions will decrease significantly. By that time, our enterprise search engines will "know" how to search content of virtually any type, whether local to my computer, on my firm's servers or on the other side of the globe.
This being year three, however, we still have some work to do to make search easy and intuitive for our end-users.
ENTER: SHAREPOINT SEARCH
In a Microsoft-centric computing environment, SharePoint Search is the logical enterprise search choice. Here I use the term "SharePoint Search" to refer to the search capability built into Microsoft Office SharePoint Server and its variants, such as Microsoft Search Server 2008.
SharePoint Search is easily customized and provides many built-in features, including automatic indexing of SharePoint content; "simple" and "advanced" search pages; and the ability to search skills, interests and related employee data as well as Microsoft Exchange content. With a bit of custom XML and XSLT coding, you can customize the advanced search page to search for firm-specific metadata; customize the search results layout; and access non-SharePoint data in the search results page using the Business Data Catalog.
With add-on products, it is possible to include documents from your Document Management System and non-Microsoft documents types such as Adobe PDF or AutoCAD drawings in SharePoint. And with JavaScript or the .NET framework, you can integrate full-text search into Web parts, Web-part pages or non-SharePoint applications and replace a poor performing full-text search engine in an existing DMS.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark Gerow
This being year three, however, we still have some work to do to make search easy and intuitive for our end-users.
ENTER: SHAREPOINT SEARCH
In a Microsoft-centric computing environment, SharePoint Search is the logical enterprise search choice. Here I use the term "SharePoint Search" to refer to the search capability built into Microsoft Office SharePoint Server and its variants, such as Microsoft Search Server 2008.
SharePoint Search is easily customized and provides many built-in features, including automatic indexing of SharePoint content; "simple" and "advanced" search pages; and the ability to search skills, interests and related employee data as well as Microsoft Exchange content. With a bit of custom XML and XSLT coding, you can customize the advanced search page to search for firm-specific metadata; customize the search results layout; and access non-SharePoint data in the search results page using the Business Data Catalog.
With add-on products, it is possible to include documents from your Document Management System and non-Microsoft documents types such as Adobe PDF or AutoCAD drawings in SharePoint. And with JavaScript or the .NET framework, you can integrate full-text search into Web parts, Web-part pages or non-SharePoint applications and replace a poor performing full-text search engine in an existing DMS.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark Gerow
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Judge Orders EOP Employees To Surrender All Electronic Media
Those preparing to depart from the Executive Office of the President may be packing up their picture frames and coffee mugs, but, because of a district court ruling [PDF] made today, they'll have to turn over their memory sticks, CDs and DVDs before they walk out the door.
United States District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. granted an emergency motion from the National Security Archive that requires the EOP to search all of its computer workstations. All EOP employees must surrender any media that may contain e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005.
The archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics have an ongoing suit against the EOP and the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to preserve as many as 5 million White House e-mails that were declared missing during the Scooter Libby trial. The archive is hoping to find out more about how the e-mails were lost by looking at the EOP media.
To Continue Reading: Click Here------------------------------------------
Source: nationaljournal.com
By: Theresa Poulson
White House Finds 14 Million Missing E-Mails, DOJ Lawyer Says
The White House has apparently found 14 million "missing" e-mails that were the subject of several lawsuits and congressional inquiries, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge late Wednesday.
Helen Hong, an attorney in the Justice Department's civil division, said the White House spent $10 million to locate the e-mails. She said the e-mails would be transferred to National Archives, along with tens of millions of other documents in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, immediately after President George W. Bush leaves office next Tuesday.
Hong's disclosure was made hours after U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy granted an emergency order to an historical group that directed Bush administration officials to immediately search all White House workstations "and to collect and preserve all e-mails sent or received between March 2003 and October 2005.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and George Washington University’s National Security Archive sued the Bush administration last year alleging the White House violated the Presidential Records Act by not archiving e-mails from 2003 to 2005. Hong claimed that independent contractors found the missing e-mails by looking through 60,000 backup tapes.
Last summer, CREW disclosed that in a court filing last August that the administration hired an outside contractor to search individual computers for tens of thousands of missing e-mails that disappeared between 2003 and 2005.
But according to the group's court filing, information technology experts conducting the search apparently have been told not to try and locate hundreds of thousands of missing e-mails from March 2003 to September 2003, a crucial timeframe that encompasses the start of the Iraq war, and the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
“CREW has learned that the White House has now completed its analysis of the missing email problem and confirmed that email is missing for as many as 225 days,” according to CREW’s August 2008 statement on the matter. “In addition, the White House is about to begin selecting, or has already selected, a contractor to restore the missing email, although it is CREW's understanding that the White House does not intend to use backup tapes predating October 2003.
“It has already been established that e-mails for the Office of the Vice President are missing for a critical week in September 2003, when the Department of Justice opened an investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's convert CIA identity. Despite the obvious relevance of these new facts to the lawsuit, the White House has refused CREW's request that is advise the Court of these events and bring transparency to the process.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: pubrecord.org
Helen Hong, an attorney in the Justice Department's civil division, said the White House spent $10 million to locate the e-mails. She said the e-mails would be transferred to National Archives, along with tens of millions of other documents in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, immediately after President George W. Bush leaves office next Tuesday.
Hong's disclosure was made hours after U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy granted an emergency order to an historical group that directed Bush administration officials to immediately search all White House workstations "and to collect and preserve all e-mails sent or received between March 2003 and October 2005.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and George Washington University’s National Security Archive sued the Bush administration last year alleging the White House violated the Presidential Records Act by not archiving e-mails from 2003 to 2005. Hong claimed that independent contractors found the missing e-mails by looking through 60,000 backup tapes.
Last summer, CREW disclosed that in a court filing last August that the administration hired an outside contractor to search individual computers for tens of thousands of missing e-mails that disappeared between 2003 and 2005.
But according to the group's court filing, information technology experts conducting the search apparently have been told not to try and locate hundreds of thousands of missing e-mails from March 2003 to September 2003, a crucial timeframe that encompasses the start of the Iraq war, and the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
“CREW has learned that the White House has now completed its analysis of the missing email problem and confirmed that email is missing for as many as 225 days,” according to CREW’s August 2008 statement on the matter. “In addition, the White House is about to begin selecting, or has already selected, a contractor to restore the missing email, although it is CREW's understanding that the White House does not intend to use backup tapes predating October 2003.
“It has already been established that e-mails for the Office of the Vice President are missing for a critical week in September 2003, when the Department of Justice opened an investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's convert CIA identity. Despite the obvious relevance of these new facts to the lawsuit, the White House has refused CREW's request that is advise the Court of these events and bring transparency to the process.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: pubrecord.org
Judge hits White House with preservation order
The Bush administration has been hit with a last-minute court order to preserve electronic messages, the result of long problems with the White House's e-mail system.
The preservation order comes amid fears by two private groups that the White House has failed to take the necessary steps to deal with millions e-mails that apparently are missing.
The issue first surfaced three years ago during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Wednesday's order by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directs the Executive Office of the President to issue a notice to employees to surrender any e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005.
That period includes the start of the war in Iraq and the first two years of the probe into the leak by top White House aides of the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Bush administration war critic Joe Wilson.
The White House said it has made great progress in accounting for e-mail messages. A spokesman declined further comment.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: examiner.com
The preservation order comes amid fears by two private groups that the White House has failed to take the necessary steps to deal with millions e-mails that apparently are missing.
The issue first surfaced three years ago during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Wednesday's order by U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directs the Executive Office of the President to issue a notice to employees to surrender any e-mails from March 2003 to October 2005.
That period includes the start of the war in Iraq and the first two years of the probe into the leak by top White House aides of the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Bush administration war critic Joe Wilson.
The White House said it has made great progress in accounting for e-mail messages. A spokesman declined further comment.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: examiner.com
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Wall Street crisis brings lax e-discovery law enforcement to light
IT managers expect U.S. to add new regulations, boost enforcement
The financial crisis on Wall Street has prompted numerous investigations into the lending practices of financial services firms, all with a similar focus: Who knew what, and when did they know it?
Strong electronic records retention plans could help users quickly answer such questions. However, industry observers note, few of the records-retention regulations enacted over the past decade have been strongly enforced, and most companies have done little to comply with them.
Analysts warn that the fallout from the Wall Street meltdown will lead quickly to stronger enforcement of existing laws -- including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission's Rule 17A-4, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- and perhaps some new ones targeting the financial services industry.
At the same time, the health care industry faces more scrutiny as it hastens to move to a
national e-health system.
Today, only 10% to 15% of U.S. corporations have electronic records retention systems in place, according to Gartner Inc. "In terms of a good electronic records systems, I would say it's closer to zero," said Debra Logan, an analyst at the consulting firm.
"There will be an increase in regulations," predicted Hugo Torres, IT director at Coral Gables, Fla.-based Great Florida Bank. "We've gotten wind of it. We'll be more heavily regulated than before."
Until two years ago, Torres said, it was common for four bank examiners to audit Great Florida Bank annually. Last year, as the crisis grew, 12 examiners inspected its records. Torres said he's bracing for even more auditors in 2009, as state and federal agencies scour every commercial and consumer loan to make sure that banks performed adequate due diligence to determine the borrowers' ability to pay.
Logan said that stronger retention systems will also help companies to better defend themselves against legal action by disgruntled customers or employees.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Computerworld
By Lucas Mearian
The financial crisis on Wall Street has prompted numerous investigations into the lending practices of financial services firms, all with a similar focus: Who knew what, and when did they know it?
Strong electronic records retention plans could help users quickly answer such questions. However, industry observers note, few of the records-retention regulations enacted over the past decade have been strongly enforced, and most companies have done little to comply with them.
Analysts warn that the fallout from the Wall Street meltdown will lead quickly to stronger enforcement of existing laws -- including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission's Rule 17A-4, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- and perhaps some new ones targeting the financial services industry.
At the same time, the health care industry faces more scrutiny as it hastens to move to a
national e-health system.
Today, only 10% to 15% of U.S. corporations have electronic records retention systems in place, according to Gartner Inc. "In terms of a good electronic records systems, I would say it's closer to zero," said Debra Logan, an analyst at the consulting firm.
"There will be an increase in regulations," predicted Hugo Torres, IT director at Coral Gables, Fla.-based Great Florida Bank. "We've gotten wind of it. We'll be more heavily regulated than before."
Until two years ago, Torres said, it was common for four bank examiners to audit Great Florida Bank annually. Last year, as the crisis grew, 12 examiners inspected its records. Torres said he's bracing for even more auditors in 2009, as state and federal agencies scour every commercial and consumer loan to make sure that banks performed adequate due diligence to determine the borrowers' ability to pay.
Logan said that stronger retention systems will also help companies to better defend themselves against legal action by disgruntled customers or employees.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Computerworld
By Lucas Mearian
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
United States: Forensic Computer Search For Public Records Required
In responding to public records requests, public offices must now be prepared to engage forensic computer experts to determine whether improperly deleted public records still reside in their computer systems. In State, ex rel. Toledo Blade Company v. Seneca County Board of Commissioners (2008) ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2008 Ohio 6253, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the County Commissioners to recover deleted emails.
In the course of covering a story about the planned demolition of a historic courthouse, the Toledo Blade requested the opportunity to inspect all outgoing and incoming emails, including "all sent messages, received messages, deleted messages, and drafts of messages" of the County Commissioners during 2006 and 2007. In response, the County Commissioners engaged a consultant and searched every single folder in the hard drives of the computers of every person from whom e-mails were requested, and provided every available document responsive to the Blade's request. The County Commissioner's consultant stated that "while it may be possible to retrieve additional information from a hard drive with very expensive forensic tools, that information would be considered deleted by the user and would not be available to the user."
The Toledo Blade was not satisfied. In particular, the Blade had the following complaints: (1) No emails over a six month period were produced from a Commissioner's inbox (2) This Commissioner admitted to deleting emails during that period (3) A different County Commissioner produced no emails from the inbox or sent box (4) This Commissioner admitted to deleting all emails until recently (5) Of the emails produced by a third Commissioner, there were substantial gaps between the dates of those emails and (6) no emails were produced from a former Commissioner.
Noting that a public office has an obligation to maintain emails which are public records and that deleting such e-mails is a violation of that obligation, the Court's opinion considered 5 factors for determining when a public office has a duty under Ohio's Public Records Act, RC 149.43, to recover deleted emails. First, it must be determined whether the e-mails have been destroyed.
The Court held that mere deletion does not necessarily destroy emails, and that as long as the e-mails are on the hard drives they do not lose their status as public records.
Second, the requester must make a prima facie showing that the e-mails were deleted in violation of the public office's records retention policy. The Court held that the non-production of which the Toledo Blade complained met this requirement because it created a reasonable inference that e-mails had been destroyed as it defied logic that all e-mails during the periods of non-production lacked sufficient administrative, fiscal, legal or historic value to be preserved. The County retention schedule permitted deletion of e-mails which did not have any such value.
In addition, the Court held that any retention policy which allowed individuals to decide to delete work-related emails was unreasonable.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: Mondaq News
By: Stanley J. Dobrowski and Virginia D. Benjamin
In the course of covering a story about the planned demolition of a historic courthouse, the Toledo Blade requested the opportunity to inspect all outgoing and incoming emails, including "all sent messages, received messages, deleted messages, and drafts of messages" of the County Commissioners during 2006 and 2007. In response, the County Commissioners engaged a consultant and searched every single folder in the hard drives of the computers of every person from whom e-mails were requested, and provided every available document responsive to the Blade's request. The County Commissioner's consultant stated that "while it may be possible to retrieve additional information from a hard drive with very expensive forensic tools, that information would be considered deleted by the user and would not be available to the user."
The Toledo Blade was not satisfied. In particular, the Blade had the following complaints: (1) No emails over a six month period were produced from a Commissioner's inbox (2) This Commissioner admitted to deleting emails during that period (3) A different County Commissioner produced no emails from the inbox or sent box (4) This Commissioner admitted to deleting all emails until recently (5) Of the emails produced by a third Commissioner, there were substantial gaps between the dates of those emails and (6) no emails were produced from a former Commissioner.
Noting that a public office has an obligation to maintain emails which are public records and that deleting such e-mails is a violation of that obligation, the Court's opinion considered 5 factors for determining when a public office has a duty under Ohio's Public Records Act, RC 149.43, to recover deleted emails. First, it must be determined whether the e-mails have been destroyed.
The Court held that mere deletion does not necessarily destroy emails, and that as long as the e-mails are on the hard drives they do not lose their status as public records.
Second, the requester must make a prima facie showing that the e-mails were deleted in violation of the public office's records retention policy. The Court held that the non-production of which the Toledo Blade complained met this requirement because it created a reasonable inference that e-mails had been destroyed as it defied logic that all e-mails during the periods of non-production lacked sufficient administrative, fiscal, legal or historic value to be preserved. The County retention schedule permitted deletion of e-mails which did not have any such value.
In addition, the Court held that any retention policy which allowed individuals to decide to delete work-related emails was unreasonable.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source: Mondaq News
By: Stanley J. Dobrowski and Virginia D. Benjamin
Being Right and Still Losing
Winning on the merits is no excuse for a failure to provide e-discovery
The paradigm that has emerged in e-discovery cases involving spoliation claims is that success regarding the spoliation claim will lead not just to imposition of monetary sanctions on the offending party but also to "adverse inference" instructions that will result in the offending party losing on the merits.
The "poster children" cases for this model were Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), "a relatively routine employment discrimination dispute" (in the words of the Zubulake court) which led to a $29.5 million judgment, and Coleman Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 67071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 1, 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 955 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., 2007), which led to a $1.5 billion (with a "B") judgment.
In two recent matters, however, Keithley v. The Homestore.com Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94235 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2008) (Keithley I) and 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103296 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (Keithley II), and the appeal in the well-known Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008), affirming in part, vacating in part and remanding, 539 F.Supp.2d 1214 (S.D.Cal. 2007), 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 57122 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 6, 2007), 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 28211 (S.D.Cal. March 21, 2007), courts have made it clear that e-discovery misconduct can result in severe monetary sanctions even when the offending party prevails on the merits. The matters are instructive to counsel and their clients who believe that being right on the merits relieves them of the duty to comply with e-discovery requirements and act in accordance with those beliefs.
In Qualcomm v. Broadcom, a number of industry leaders participated in a Joint Video Team or JVT to develop an industry standard for video compression technology. The standard which arose from the effort became known as the "H.264 standard." Participants in the JVT were required to waive their patent rights as they pertained to the standard and its development. Qualcomm brought a patent infringement action against Broadcom, one of whose defenses was that Qualcomm had waived its patent rights by participating in the JVT. Qualcomm responded by asserting that it had not participated in the JVT until after it created the H.264 standard and so none of Qualcomm's patents were waived as they pertained to that standard. Events revealed, however, that Qualcomm had participated in the JVT while it developed the H.264 standard and failed to disclose in discovery thousands of relevant e-mails that demonstrated that participation. The jury returned verdicts that Broadcom did not infringe upon Qualcomm's patents and advisory verdicts that the patents were unenforceable due to Qualcomm's inequitable conduct as well as to waiver. The trial court thereafter entered an "Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver" that the patents were "unenforceable against the world." It also imposed severe monetary sanctions upon Qualcomm and, in what is the most well-known aspect of the opinion, referred counsel to the state bar for investigation and possible sanctions and ordered counsel to participate in a comprehensive Case Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations program.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
The paradigm that has emerged in e-discovery cases involving spoliation claims is that success regarding the spoliation claim will lead not just to imposition of monetary sanctions on the offending party but also to "adverse inference" instructions that will result in the offending party losing on the merits.
The "poster children" cases for this model were Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), "a relatively routine employment discrimination dispute" (in the words of the Zubulake court) which led to a $29.5 million judgment, and Coleman Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 67071 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 1, 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 955 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., 2007), which led to a $1.5 billion (with a "B") judgment.
In two recent matters, however, Keithley v. The Homestore.com Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94235 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2008) (Keithley I) and 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103296 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (Keithley II), and the appeal in the well-known Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008), affirming in part, vacating in part and remanding, 539 F.Supp.2d 1214 (S.D.Cal. 2007), 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 57122 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 6, 2007), 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 28211 (S.D.Cal. March 21, 2007), courts have made it clear that e-discovery misconduct can result in severe monetary sanctions even when the offending party prevails on the merits. The matters are instructive to counsel and their clients who believe that being right on the merits relieves them of the duty to comply with e-discovery requirements and act in accordance with those beliefs.
In Qualcomm v. Broadcom, a number of industry leaders participated in a Joint Video Team or JVT to develop an industry standard for video compression technology. The standard which arose from the effort became known as the "H.264 standard." Participants in the JVT were required to waive their patent rights as they pertained to the standard and its development. Qualcomm brought a patent infringement action against Broadcom, one of whose defenses was that Qualcomm had waived its patent rights by participating in the JVT. Qualcomm responded by asserting that it had not participated in the JVT until after it created the H.264 standard and so none of Qualcomm's patents were waived as they pertained to that standard. Events revealed, however, that Qualcomm had participated in the JVT while it developed the H.264 standard and failed to disclose in discovery thousands of relevant e-mails that demonstrated that participation. The jury returned verdicts that Broadcom did not infringe upon Qualcomm's patents and advisory verdicts that the patents were unenforceable due to Qualcomm's inequitable conduct as well as to waiver. The trial court thereafter entered an "Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver" that the patents were "unenforceable against the world." It also imposed severe monetary sanctions upon Qualcomm and, in what is the most well-known aspect of the opinion, referred counsel to the state bar for investigation and possible sanctions and ordered counsel to participate in a comprehensive Case Review and Enforcement of Discovery Obligations program.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Leonard Deutchman
Prepare for E-Discovery Before a Lawsuit Is Filed
A well-organized records management program is the foundation for an effective electronic discovery program.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require producing not just paper, but all electronic documents and data for trial. Defendants and their counsel must preserve and provide electronically stored information, and a court can inflict sanctions if it finds that relevant electronic documents have not been preserved and produced in discovery.
The records management life cycle is the foundation of an effective e-discovery program. In the traditional management model, every paper or electronic document goes through five steps: creation by the individual; distribution to intended recipients; storage of the physical or electronic document; retention of the document based on an assessment of its significance and value; and preservation in a manner that allows the document to be retrieved and searched.
When it comes to the preservation of electronically stored information (ESI), the IT organization should be an integral part of any records management strategy. IT professionals must take an active role in the discovery process and educate counsel on the technological basics of data storage and retrieval. This can be done only through strategic planning for electronic evidence gathering. Creating a management program for ESI begins by identifying and interviewing everyone who can help identify core business functions and values, and evaluate the status of records and policies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: baselinemag.com
By: Jennifer Jackson Spencer
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require producing not just paper, but all electronic documents and data for trial. Defendants and their counsel must preserve and provide electronically stored information, and a court can inflict sanctions if it finds that relevant electronic documents have not been preserved and produced in discovery.
The records management life cycle is the foundation of an effective e-discovery program. In the traditional management model, every paper or electronic document goes through five steps: creation by the individual; distribution to intended recipients; storage of the physical or electronic document; retention of the document based on an assessment of its significance and value; and preservation in a manner that allows the document to be retrieved and searched.
When it comes to the preservation of electronically stored information (ESI), the IT organization should be an integral part of any records management strategy. IT professionals must take an active role in the discovery process and educate counsel on the technological basics of data storage and retrieval. This can be done only through strategic planning for electronic evidence gathering. Creating a management program for ESI begins by identifying and interviewing everyone who can help identify core business functions and values, and evaluate the status of records and policies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: baselinemag.com
By: Jennifer Jackson Spencer
Monday, January 12, 2009
Recent Court Ruling Underscores Importance of EnCase(R) eDiscovery's File Metadata Preservation Capabilities
Guidance Software Inc. (NASDAQ: GUID), the World Leader in Digital Investigations(TM), today issued a legal alert addressing a recent and important published court ruling reaffirming the importance of preserving and maintaining file metadata throughout the eDiscovery process.
In Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.1, a United States District Court issued a definitive ruling providing that the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that metadata associated with emails and electronic files be preserved, maintained and produced in the course of legal discovery, particularly where the requesting party seeks its production in its initial request. This case reaffirms that the preservation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) including its associated metadata throughout the eDiscovery process is critical, and that a party to litigation faces significant legal risk if they do not collect and maintain digital evidence with technology designed specifically for the task.
As eDiscovery best practices are delineated and ultimately determined by the courts, this case is particularly important as it dispels any uncertainty concerning the legal requirements for metadata preservation. In arriving at its decision, the Aguilar court cited recent case law, as well guidance from the influential Sedona Conference, who recently revised their statement of eDiscovery principles to emphasize the importance of metadata preservation in the course of discovery. The Aguilar court explained that file metadata is important to help establish the authenticity of electronically stored information, to enable accurate and effective search, sorting and analysis of the data, and also because the metadata itself has relevant evidentiary value.
The Aguilar decision underscores the importance of eDiscovery technology such as EnCase(R) eDiscovery software that preserves metadata throughout the eDiscovery process, including the processing stage. Most eDiscovery solutions fail to preserve file metadata at the collection and/or processing and early assessment stages. As a result, organizations risk significant legal exposure by producing ESI with compromised metadata, or incur substantial increased cost by engaging in a time consuming, manual processing effort to reset the file metadata to its original pre-collection state.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: streetinsider.com
In Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.1, a United States District Court issued a definitive ruling providing that the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that metadata associated with emails and electronic files be preserved, maintained and produced in the course of legal discovery, particularly where the requesting party seeks its production in its initial request. This case reaffirms that the preservation of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) including its associated metadata throughout the eDiscovery process is critical, and that a party to litigation faces significant legal risk if they do not collect and maintain digital evidence with technology designed specifically for the task.
As eDiscovery best practices are delineated and ultimately determined by the courts, this case is particularly important as it dispels any uncertainty concerning the legal requirements for metadata preservation. In arriving at its decision, the Aguilar court cited recent case law, as well guidance from the influential Sedona Conference, who recently revised their statement of eDiscovery principles to emphasize the importance of metadata preservation in the course of discovery. The Aguilar court explained that file metadata is important to help establish the authenticity of electronically stored information, to enable accurate and effective search, sorting and analysis of the data, and also because the metadata itself has relevant evidentiary value.
The Aguilar decision underscores the importance of eDiscovery technology such as EnCase(R) eDiscovery software that preserves metadata throughout the eDiscovery process, including the processing stage. Most eDiscovery solutions fail to preserve file metadata at the collection and/or processing and early assessment stages. As a result, organizations risk significant legal exposure by producing ESI with compromised metadata, or incur substantial increased cost by engaging in a time consuming, manual processing effort to reset the file metadata to its original pre-collection state.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: streetinsider.com
Email leak drama not over: mayor
The city’s response to a 2006 leak of then-regional councillor Linda Jackson’s emails wasn’t very thorough, an audit into the security breach suggests.
Parts of that audit, released to Vaughan Today this week following a lengthy freedom of information battle, also reveal discrepancies in the email saga and apparent lies coming from city hall.
The whole thing has Jackson seething. She’s finally speaking out about the 2-year-old audit report.
“When the report came out, certainly to me it begged a lot more questions than were answered,” the mayor said Tuesday. “I had asked that we take a further look and investigate it further at the time.
“Council wasn’t willing to investigate it further.”
Deloitte and Touche forensic experts had spent several months examining the city’s computer system in 2007 after police decided leaked emails in October 2006 didn’t warrant their own investigation.
More than 20 pages of Jackson’s emails had landed on then-mayor Michael DiBiase’s doorstep on Thanksgiving weekend.
Auditors were “not able to determine conclusively if and how Ms. Jackson’s emails were accessed from the Vaughan servers,” the Deloitte and Touche report states
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: vaughantoday.ca
By: Alexis Dobranowski
Parts of that audit, released to Vaughan Today this week following a lengthy freedom of information battle, also reveal discrepancies in the email saga and apparent lies coming from city hall.
The whole thing has Jackson seething. She’s finally speaking out about the 2-year-old audit report.
“When the report came out, certainly to me it begged a lot more questions than were answered,” the mayor said Tuesday. “I had asked that we take a further look and investigate it further at the time.
“Council wasn’t willing to investigate it further.”
Deloitte and Touche forensic experts had spent several months examining the city’s computer system in 2007 after police decided leaked emails in October 2006 didn’t warrant their own investigation.
More than 20 pages of Jackson’s emails had landed on then-mayor Michael DiBiase’s doorstep on Thanksgiving weekend.
Auditors were “not able to determine conclusively if and how Ms. Jackson’s emails were accessed from the Vaughan servers,” the Deloitte and Touche report states
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: vaughantoday.ca
By: Alexis Dobranowski
502: The Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege Waivers
In hearings before the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, a consultant to a Fortune 20 company testified that the company incurred $13.5 million in legal fees simply to review documents for privilege in response to a Department of Justice subpoena. Testimony like this, as well as the widespread view that e-discovery is spiraling parties' legal costs, led Congress to pass and the president to sign Federal Rule of Evidence 502 into law.
Rather than rework the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to change the scope of discovery or objections, Rule 502 attempts to clarify and limit the impact of a party's disclosure of privileged or work-product protected documents. The cost-saving rationale underlying the rule appears to be that, by lessening the untoward consequences of producing a privileged document, a party need not spend as much effort (and money) in reviewing documents for privilege.
Subsection (a) defines the limited circumstances under which a party's intentional waiver of the attorney-client or work-product protections as to one document waives the protections afforded other documents and information concerning the same subject matter. Subsection (b) creates a "reasonableness" standard for identifying those instances when a party's inadvertent disclosure of a document waives the protections attached to that document. Subsections (d) and (e) strongly counsel that litigators use court-approved confidentiality agreements to further avoid uncertainty regarding a waiver and its consequences and to ensure that whatever disclosures they make cannot be used by non-parties as evidence of waiver. In an important federalism development, Subsection (f) provides that a federal court determination of a party's non-waiver is binding upon a state proceeding.
The chart below summarizes the key waiver portions of Rule 502. The first row shows the impact of a party's intentional waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine; the second row addresses the consequences of a party's inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document. The two columns summarize whether the intentional waiver and inadvertent disclosure causes a waiver of the privilege of the document produced or, more broadly, of all documents and information on the same subject matter.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: John S. Summers And Michael D. Gadarian
Rather than rework the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to change the scope of discovery or objections, Rule 502 attempts to clarify and limit the impact of a party's disclosure of privileged or work-product protected documents. The cost-saving rationale underlying the rule appears to be that, by lessening the untoward consequences of producing a privileged document, a party need not spend as much effort (and money) in reviewing documents for privilege.
Subsection (a) defines the limited circumstances under which a party's intentional waiver of the attorney-client or work-product protections as to one document waives the protections afforded other documents and information concerning the same subject matter. Subsection (b) creates a "reasonableness" standard for identifying those instances when a party's inadvertent disclosure of a document waives the protections attached to that document. Subsections (d) and (e) strongly counsel that litigators use court-approved confidentiality agreements to further avoid uncertainty regarding a waiver and its consequences and to ensure that whatever disclosures they make cannot be used by non-parties as evidence of waiver. In an important federalism development, Subsection (f) provides that a federal court determination of a party's non-waiver is binding upon a state proceeding.
The chart below summarizes the key waiver portions of Rule 502. The first row shows the impact of a party's intentional waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine; the second row addresses the consequences of a party's inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document. The two columns summarize whether the intentional waiver and inadvertent disclosure causes a waiver of the privilege of the document produced or, more broadly, of all documents and information on the same subject matter.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: John S. Summers And Michael D. Gadarian
Saturday, January 10, 2009
E-Discovery Trends in 2009
New developments in e-discovery will affect enterprise general counsel and compliance officers, law firms serving corporate clients, and IT departments.
A few years ago, the Taneja Group coined the term "Information Classification and Management" (ICM) to describe the technology of locating and classifying data throughout the enterprise. ICM covered sub-technology sectors such as e-discovery, compliance, data security control, and data management. However, we saw the term "e-discovery" trump the more comprehensive name as rabid attention turned from ICM to the specifics of civil litigation software tools. We are now seeing the e-discovery term itself take on a fuller usage, more akin to ICM. People do use the term when talking about civil litigation, but are also expanding it to encompass compliance, corporate governance, data classification, and even knowledge management.
In this broad sense we have looked at the trends of the e-discovery market as they impact its largest stakeholders: the enterprise general counsel and compliance officers, law firms serving corporate clients, and IT.
The crux of the matter is that e-discovery and its related areas will be extremely hot for litigation and compliance, especially those related to the financial meltdown. The market increasingly understands the necessity of e-discovery software tools and systems, and will move toward proactive e-discovery adoption. A more reactive approach will remain alive and well as many companies will still avoid implementation until driven to it by a lawsuit or federal investigation. But companies will increasingly understand that the e-discovery solution phenomenon is much more than a litigation aid. It also has major effects on federal compliance and internal governance, and potentially on data management throughout the enterprise.
Corporations will be looking for technology that helps them meet compliance and litigation demands while controlling costs, and will demand that their outside law firms do the same. IT will be looking for ways to add value around data classification and management. By forming interdisciplinary teams at the corporate level to research e-discovery solutions, the enterprise will help to drive wide e-discovery development past specific litigation concerns. Litigation will remain the most significant pain point, but compliance/governance and data management will not be far behind. The most successful e-discovery vendors will be those who can meet these expanded needs in the enterprise, whether through a comprehensive platform or best-of-breed integrated offerings.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Byte and Switch
By: Christine Taylor
A few years ago, the Taneja Group coined the term "Information Classification and Management" (ICM) to describe the technology of locating and classifying data throughout the enterprise. ICM covered sub-technology sectors such as e-discovery, compliance, data security control, and data management. However, we saw the term "e-discovery" trump the more comprehensive name as rabid attention turned from ICM to the specifics of civil litigation software tools. We are now seeing the e-discovery term itself take on a fuller usage, more akin to ICM. People do use the term when talking about civil litigation, but are also expanding it to encompass compliance, corporate governance, data classification, and even knowledge management.
In this broad sense we have looked at the trends of the e-discovery market as they impact its largest stakeholders: the enterprise general counsel and compliance officers, law firms serving corporate clients, and IT.
The crux of the matter is that e-discovery and its related areas will be extremely hot for litigation and compliance, especially those related to the financial meltdown. The market increasingly understands the necessity of e-discovery software tools and systems, and will move toward proactive e-discovery adoption. A more reactive approach will remain alive and well as many companies will still avoid implementation until driven to it by a lawsuit or federal investigation. But companies will increasingly understand that the e-discovery solution phenomenon is much more than a litigation aid. It also has major effects on federal compliance and internal governance, and potentially on data management throughout the enterprise.
Corporations will be looking for technology that helps them meet compliance and litigation demands while controlling costs, and will demand that their outside law firms do the same. IT will be looking for ways to add value around data classification and management. By forming interdisciplinary teams at the corporate level to research e-discovery solutions, the enterprise will help to drive wide e-discovery development past specific litigation concerns. Litigation will remain the most significant pain point, but compliance/governance and data management will not be far behind. The most successful e-discovery vendors will be those who can meet these expanded needs in the enterprise, whether through a comprehensive platform or best-of-breed integrated offerings.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: Byte and Switch
By: Christine Taylor
Friday, January 09, 2009
"Since Both Parties Went Through the Same Stop Sign...They Both Should Pay for the Crash": Court Orders Parties to Split Cost of Privilege Review
Covad Comm. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2008 WL 5377698 (D.D.C. Dec. 24, 2008)
In this case arising from claims of misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information, plaintiff filed a motion to compel following a disagreement regarding the proper format of production of electronically stored information. The defendant argued that because the plaintiff failed to specify a format of production, hard copy or .TIFF images were appropriate. The plaintiff insisted on production in native format. The court, indicating its displeasure with both parties, ordered production of the documents in their native format, but ordered the parties to split the cost of the necessary privilege review.
Following plaintiff’s initial requests for production, defendant advised that it had retained an “outside consultant to assist in collecting electronic documents…” Thereafter, defendant advised plaintiff that responsive documents were available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Following plaintiff’s insistence that the documents be produced, defendant once again offered to make 35,000 pages of email available in hard copy format for inspection and copying. Weeks later, defendant offered to make the emails available as TIFF files, but only if plaintiff was willing to pay for the necessary deletions of non-responsive and privileged materials. The parties could not agree and sought judicial intervention.
The court’s analysis began with the observation that absent a discussion between the parties regarding production, both seemed to be making assumptions based on the other’s behavior, i.e., plaintiff’s expectation of electronic production was based on defendant’s retention of outside consultant to collect its electronic information, and defendant’s expectation of production in hard copy was based on plaintiff’s production in that format. The court then noted that the parties had invited him to look to the language of the request to determine the appropriate format of production.
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com
E-Discovery Requirements Are About to Hit Canadian Firms
As Canadian firms brace for new e-discovery rules, they can look to their U.S. counterparts for technology lessons.
Time is growing short for Canadian securities firms to prepare for the scheduled April enforcement of the new Canadian National Instrument 31-103 (NI 31-103), regulation that significantly expands record keeping requirements for electronic communications. Fortunately NI 31-103 substantively mirrors U.S. regulations already in place, which means Canadian firms have the opportunity to learn from others’ experiences.
“NI 31-103 is very similar to SEC and FINRA requirements in the U.S.,” substantiates Carolyn DiCenzo, a Gartner research VP. “It’s important to remember that the spirit of the law is communications and not just one particular type of communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging.”
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: wallstreetandtech.com
E-Discovery Rulings: 2008 in Review
In 2006, courts and litigants braced for the electronic data discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Conventional wisdom suggested pandemonium would ensue as parties wrangled over the meaning and relative impact of the amended rules on their respective cases.
Instead, in 2007, courts quickly responded with several rulings that clarified the amended rules. Then in 2008, the EDD community saw its most active year to date, with opinions delving into the technology for search and retrieval, the meet-and-confer process and the enactment of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 to combat waiver of attorney-client privilege resulting from the inadvertent production of electronically stored information.
While the usual suspects -- a small group of active judges -- continue to write opinions that further guide and shape the preservation and production of ESI, several opinions in 2008 were drafted by relatively new players taking a more active role.
Many of 2008's "must read" opinions came from District of D.C. Magistrate Judge John Facciola and District of Maryland Judge Paul Grimm. Some have suggested the two have a friendly rivalry aptly called "the Battle of the Beltway," however, the cases are more likely testament to both judges' passion and expertise in the area.
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Cecil Lynn III & Alexandra Hicks
Thursday, January 08, 2009
New Report: Data Breaches up 47% in 2008; Insiders Blamed
Researcher: 'If I Were a Financial Institution, I'd be Nervous'
Reported data breaches increased by nearly half in 2008, and 12 percent of the total hacks were at financial institutions - up from 7 percent in 2007.
This is the news from the Identity Theft Resource Center's (ITRC) 2008 breach report, which shows that 2008's 656 reported breaches were up 47 percent over 2007's total of 446. Seventy-eight of the breaches were at financial services companies. And the ITRC says breaches will continue expanding until more companies start taking data protection seriously.
The two most prevalent types of methods used to remove data from financial services companies are external hacking and insiders, according to Jay Foley, Executive Director at ITRC. "The most recent CSI report shows that 70 percent of hacking has been from the inside, meaning a trusted insider did it," Foley says. "If I were a financial institution, I'd be nervous."
Other data-loss methods tracked include data on the move, accidental exposure and subcontractors.
The ITRC monitors reports from five groups: business, education, government/military, health/medical and financial/credit. Over the three years the ITRC has compiled this report, the financial, banking and credit industries have remained the most proactive groups in terms of data protection.
Report Card for Banking Institutions
But despite having the best record among the five groups, financial institutions still suffer a great deal of loss. Missing laptops and backup tapes stand out as some of the more glaring areas for data loss. In looking at the entire number of breaches, only 2.4 percent of all breaches had encryption or other strong protection methods in use, and only 8.5 percent of reported breaches had minimal password protection.
"That leaves the rest that were unprotected," Foley notes. "Encryption is an extremely positive tool." If one bank encrypts its information, and the bank next door doesn't, he asks, "Where do you think the hacker will go to get data?" An additional point Foley makes is that most backup tapes or cartridges must be read on equipment that is expensive and not easily attainable to the average hacker. "If I was a bank and one of my non-encrypted backup tapes went missing, I wouldn't worry too much. An unencrypted laptop goes missing, that's a whole different matter," he says.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: bankinfosecurity.com
By: Linda McGlasson
Reported data breaches increased by nearly half in 2008, and 12 percent of the total hacks were at financial institutions - up from 7 percent in 2007.
This is the news from the Identity Theft Resource Center's (ITRC) 2008 breach report, which shows that 2008's 656 reported breaches were up 47 percent over 2007's total of 446. Seventy-eight of the breaches were at financial services companies. And the ITRC says breaches will continue expanding until more companies start taking data protection seriously.
The two most prevalent types of methods used to remove data from financial services companies are external hacking and insiders, according to Jay Foley, Executive Director at ITRC. "The most recent CSI report shows that 70 percent of hacking has been from the inside, meaning a trusted insider did it," Foley says. "If I were a financial institution, I'd be nervous."
Other data-loss methods tracked include data on the move, accidental exposure and subcontractors.
The ITRC monitors reports from five groups: business, education, government/military, health/medical and financial/credit. Over the three years the ITRC has compiled this report, the financial, banking and credit industries have remained the most proactive groups in terms of data protection.
Report Card for Banking Institutions
But despite having the best record among the five groups, financial institutions still suffer a great deal of loss. Missing laptops and backup tapes stand out as some of the more glaring areas for data loss. In looking at the entire number of breaches, only 2.4 percent of all breaches had encryption or other strong protection methods in use, and only 8.5 percent of reported breaches had minimal password protection.
"That leaves the rest that were unprotected," Foley notes. "Encryption is an extremely positive tool." If one bank encrypts its information, and the bank next door doesn't, he asks, "Where do you think the hacker will go to get data?" An additional point Foley makes is that most backup tapes or cartridges must be read on equipment that is expensive and not easily attainable to the average hacker. "If I was a bank and one of my non-encrypted backup tapes went missing, I wouldn't worry too much. An unencrypted laptop goes missing, that's a whole different matter," he says.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: bankinfosecurity.com
By: Linda McGlasson
Top 10 eDiscovery Trends for 2009
The folks at Clearwell Systems, whose platform works to streamline the eDiscovery process, have looked into their crystal ball and have offered a few predictions for the new year. Among them, trends that respond to financial and legal stresses as well as a need for more collaboration. The most compelling of their predictions lay within the realm of compliance and technology.
For the most part, there predictions aren't surprising our outrageous. They take aim at the very crux of what eDiscovery proselytizes -- show your work, collaborate, adapt and take control!
Drum roll please -- Top 10 Trends for eDiscovery in 2009:
1.) Government Investigations Increase: If you thought 2008 had a lot of law suits, you ain't seen nothing yet. An increase in economic tensions and the increase in high-profile scandals will most probably lead to a rise in government data requests, compliance audits and investigations from both a state and federal level.
2.) Corporations Take More Control over eDiscovery: Companies are desperate to save a buck or two, so they'll be more likely to secure more ownership over the eDiscovery process to enhance control and reduce costs. Leveraging in-house technologies, internal legal teams will deploy early case assessment methodologies and data reduction strategies. Not only will taking control save money, but by becoming more involved in the process, general counsel will collaborate more with outside counsel. This saves time as well.
3.) Industry Push for Collaboration: Those who choose to be more inclusive and collaborative in the new year will benefit from reduced costs and conflicts.
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: cmswire.com
By: Marisa Peacock
What Steams Me About Technology
At LegalTech New York, I will be on a panel organized by Law Technology News and Corporate Counsel, called "What I Hate About Technology, and What I Expect My Outside Counsel, Co-Counsel, Vendors and Employees to Do About It." That got me thinking about my pet peeves.
First, why do so many IT folks focus on the software itself, instead of the task it should accomplish? I hate when programmers develop programs to meet their needs, rather than those of the actual user.
Similarly, I hate cloud computing -- relying on Web-based tools or "Software as a Service." Anything that takes power away from individual users and moves it elsewhere is horrible. Apart from debates about reliability and security, it is a retrograde move back to the era of the mainframe, where we were reliant on the high priests of the systems department to get anything done.
To ensure effectiveness, which is driven by clarity and relevance, automation tools should be as close to the user as possible. Nothing should enter the real world until it reflects how real people act, and has been thoroughly tested by real people. Successful technology works when it mimics how people think and behave.
It is far easier to sell something that meets a need than convince someone they need something new. Identifying that need and how people think about it takes imagination and creativity, not programming skill.
Think about how Hollywood studios imagined automation tools when they were freed from the need to worry about making something that actually worked. The Walt Disney Co.'s "Babes in Toyland" (1961) had what we would recognize today as a CAD-CAM device to magically make toys. Michael Crichton's "Disclosure" (1994) featured a 3-D search through a visual database that everyone watching instantly understood. Some of Apple's database technology gets close to this, which is why the iPod and iPhone are so popular.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Ted Banks
First, why do so many IT folks focus on the software itself, instead of the task it should accomplish? I hate when programmers develop programs to meet their needs, rather than those of the actual user.
Similarly, I hate cloud computing -- relying on Web-based tools or "Software as a Service." Anything that takes power away from individual users and moves it elsewhere is horrible. Apart from debates about reliability and security, it is a retrograde move back to the era of the mainframe, where we were reliant on the high priests of the systems department to get anything done.
To ensure effectiveness, which is driven by clarity and relevance, automation tools should be as close to the user as possible. Nothing should enter the real world until it reflects how real people act, and has been thoroughly tested by real people. Successful technology works when it mimics how people think and behave.
It is far easier to sell something that meets a need than convince someone they need something new. Identifying that need and how people think about it takes imagination and creativity, not programming skill.
Think about how Hollywood studios imagined automation tools when they were freed from the need to worry about making something that actually worked. The Walt Disney Co.'s "Babes in Toyland" (1961) had what we would recognize today as a CAD-CAM device to magically make toys. Michael Crichton's "Disclosure" (1994) featured a 3-D search through a visual database that everyone watching instantly understood. Some of Apple's database technology gets close to this, which is why the iPod and iPhone are so popular.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Ted Banks
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
12 Technology Predictions for 2009
Analysts weigh in on content management trends for the New Year
In the cyclical Chinese calendar, 2009 is the Year of the Ox. Chinese horoscopes characterize those born within the year as determined, hard-working, stable, and persevering -- traits that happen to be in demand as we enter the second year of a recession. With the economy weighing heavily on the minds of decision-makers, fighting through the tide has never been more important for businesses, according to CMS Watch, a research firm focused on Web content management, enterprise portals, and enterprise search technology.
Tony Byrne, founder of CMS Watch, says the firm prides itself on keeping a finger on the pulse of the customer, so, when putting together a set of technology forecasts for 2009, CMS Watch looked to customers -- who else? -- for a sense of their purchasing plans and strategies for the upcoming year. Not surprisingly, one recurring theme among the predictions is an effort to prioritize cost savings and to get better mileage out of existing software purchases.
The 12 CMS Watch predictions for 2009 are as follows:
1.) Open-source enterprise content management will see more love from buyers. Byrne says that he has seen the industry increasingly pay attention to both open-source technology and software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions over the last five years. The current economic conditions, however, will drive even more interest and adoption in open-source solutions. Byrne predicts a "significant uptake" in SaaS and open-source solutions due to the perception that the two technologies are cheaper than traditional software options -- a perception that may not be wholly accurate, he adds. "The reality is, once [buyers] get into it, they may discover that [SaaS and open-source solutions don't] have less [total cost of ownership] in the long run." In other words, something that appears "too good to be true" might really be just that. Byrne warns potential buyers to take a strong look at the software they already have before choosing something new to take on.
2.) The next release of Microsoft SharePoint will cause customers to reassess. Byrne says that he expects Microsoft to release a Beta version of Office 14 in 2009, which may include some updated SharePoint tools. Even though the 2007 edition of SharePoint is still very new to a lot of users, many have complained that they've been unable to fully comprehend certain functions -- and the new release is expected to address those concerns, Byrne says. This fervent hope, he adds, may lead to a re-evaluation of the product among current and prospective users.
3.) Metadata will send taxonomists into a frenzy. "The whole issue of metadata and tagging will continue to be one that's hotly debated," Byrne says. For those devoted to categorizing content, third-party data brings a whole new set of challenges. Metadata, categorized by social-tagging methods, does not fit the typical standards of enterprise data sets. For this reason, vendors are pushing data-cleansing and data-integration tools to unite on-premises data with social data in the cloud. Byrne recommends that organizations stringently evaluate the way they use -- or don't use -- metadata within their existing information systems before jumping into a new solution. Only after that assessment is complete can a company accurately see how sophisticated social insight could add value to the information systems.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: destinationcrm.com
By: Lauren McKay
In the cyclical Chinese calendar, 2009 is the Year of the Ox. Chinese horoscopes characterize those born within the year as determined, hard-working, stable, and persevering -- traits that happen to be in demand as we enter the second year of a recession. With the economy weighing heavily on the minds of decision-makers, fighting through the tide has never been more important for businesses, according to CMS Watch, a research firm focused on Web content management, enterprise portals, and enterprise search technology.
Tony Byrne, founder of CMS Watch, says the firm prides itself on keeping a finger on the pulse of the customer, so, when putting together a set of technology forecasts for 2009, CMS Watch looked to customers -- who else? -- for a sense of their purchasing plans and strategies for the upcoming year. Not surprisingly, one recurring theme among the predictions is an effort to prioritize cost savings and to get better mileage out of existing software purchases.
The 12 CMS Watch predictions for 2009 are as follows:
1.) Open-source enterprise content management will see more love from buyers. Byrne says that he has seen the industry increasingly pay attention to both open-source technology and software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions over the last five years. The current economic conditions, however, will drive even more interest and adoption in open-source solutions. Byrne predicts a "significant uptake" in SaaS and open-source solutions due to the perception that the two technologies are cheaper than traditional software options -- a perception that may not be wholly accurate, he adds. "The reality is, once [buyers] get into it, they may discover that [SaaS and open-source solutions don't] have less [total cost of ownership] in the long run." In other words, something that appears "too good to be true" might really be just that. Byrne warns potential buyers to take a strong look at the software they already have before choosing something new to take on.
2.) The next release of Microsoft SharePoint will cause customers to reassess. Byrne says that he expects Microsoft to release a Beta version of Office 14 in 2009, which may include some updated SharePoint tools. Even though the 2007 edition of SharePoint is still very new to a lot of users, many have complained that they've been unable to fully comprehend certain functions -- and the new release is expected to address those concerns, Byrne says. This fervent hope, he adds, may lead to a re-evaluation of the product among current and prospective users.
3.) Metadata will send taxonomists into a frenzy. "The whole issue of metadata and tagging will continue to be one that's hotly debated," Byrne says. For those devoted to categorizing content, third-party data brings a whole new set of challenges. Metadata, categorized by social-tagging methods, does not fit the typical standards of enterprise data sets. For this reason, vendors are pushing data-cleansing and data-integration tools to unite on-premises data with social data in the cloud. Byrne recommends that organizations stringently evaluate the way they use -- or don't use -- metadata within their existing information systems before jumping into a new solution. Only after that assessment is complete can a company accurately see how sophisticated social insight could add value to the information systems.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: destinationcrm.com
By: Lauren McKay
Taking Data Deduplication beyond backup
These are exciting times in the networked storage market with a growth of about 25% year on year, as per a report. Data volumes are doubling every 18 months and devices accessing data are doubling every 2-1/2 years. Data deduplication market is estimated to be around $1.2 billion with many players including Quantum, EMC, HP, IBM, Data Domain all eyeing a major pie in the market share in India.
Why data de-duplication?
Data deduplication technology eliminates redundant data from disk storage device to lower storage space requirements. The technology enables customers to reduce floor space and lower energy consumption by decreasing storage capacity requirements. It also helps them minimize administrative overhead by retaining data on disk for longer periods of time. Another primary advantage is that the customers find that this technology has re-defined the backup policy where compression rate is more as it is a transition from backup to tape and also the return on investments is very quick. The average UNIX or Windows enterprise disk volume contains thousands or even millions of duplicate data objects. As these objects are modified, distributed, backed-up, and archived, the duplicate data objects are stored repeatedly. The end result of this is inefficient use of storage resources. Deduplication helps to prevent this inefficiency. Deduplication can provide substantial cost benefits through reduced storage capacity requirements.
Hu Yoshida, VP and CTO of Hitachi Data Systems commenting on data de-duplication prospects in 2009 said, "Given the current market conditions, companies will be keen to do more with less and any measure that helps the enterprise save costs and improve productivity will be in demand. For example, backup to disk and data de-duplication are key areas where customers can save money by pushing off and compressing the data and reducing the amount of times data is backed up - all of which adds up to cost savings around OPEX."
How Data Deduplication Works
Data deduplication simply means the elimination of redundant data. In the deduplication process, data is scanned and unique patterns are identified, assigned corresponding unique data finger-prints, indexed and retained. Duplicate copies of data already fingerprinted are deleted, leaving only one stored copy of each unique data pattern along with its corresponding fingerprint.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: CXOtoday.com
By: Manu Sharma
Why data de-duplication?
Data deduplication technology eliminates redundant data from disk storage device to lower storage space requirements. The technology enables customers to reduce floor space and lower energy consumption by decreasing storage capacity requirements. It also helps them minimize administrative overhead by retaining data on disk for longer periods of time. Another primary advantage is that the customers find that this technology has re-defined the backup policy where compression rate is more as it is a transition from backup to tape and also the return on investments is very quick. The average UNIX or Windows enterprise disk volume contains thousands or even millions of duplicate data objects. As these objects are modified, distributed, backed-up, and archived, the duplicate data objects are stored repeatedly. The end result of this is inefficient use of storage resources. Deduplication helps to prevent this inefficiency. Deduplication can provide substantial cost benefits through reduced storage capacity requirements.
Hu Yoshida, VP and CTO of Hitachi Data Systems commenting on data de-duplication prospects in 2009 said, "Given the current market conditions, companies will be keen to do more with less and any measure that helps the enterprise save costs and improve productivity will be in demand. For example, backup to disk and data de-duplication are key areas where customers can save money by pushing off and compressing the data and reducing the amount of times data is backed up - all of which adds up to cost savings around OPEX."
How Data Deduplication Works
Data deduplication simply means the elimination of redundant data. In the deduplication process, data is scanned and unique patterns are identified, assigned corresponding unique data finger-prints, indexed and retained. Duplicate copies of data already fingerprinted are deleted, leaving only one stored copy of each unique data pattern along with its corresponding fingerprint.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: CXOtoday.com
By: Manu Sharma
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola to Focus LegalTech Keynote on Impact of Rule Changes on EDD
United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, one of the bench's most knowledgeable experts on the evolving topic of electronic data discovery (EDD), will discuss the critical concepts of competence and cooperation in the EDD process in a keynote address at Incisive Media's upcoming LegalTech New York conference. LegalTech New York 2009, the world's largest and most prestigious legal technology conference and trade show, will take place February 2-4 at the Hilton Hotel in New York City. Complete conference information is available at www.legaltechshow.com.
The keynote will take place at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 4th in the Grand Ballroom. This session is open to all attendees and has been approved for one hour of CLE/CPD credit.
Facciola will review the history of the latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While intended to expand cooperation among parties, the rule changes can yield the opposite result: a widening gulf between parties who understand EDD and those who do not.
His remarks will touch on issues including;
-- Enforcing standards of competence
-- Managing "asymmetrical" litigation, in which one side has a distinct advantage through its understanding of EDD
-- Leveraging experts and special masters
-- Balancing the roles of in-house and external counsel
-- Fostering cooperation and the future of EDD
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: marketwatch.com
The keynote will take place at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 4th in the Grand Ballroom. This session is open to all attendees and has been approved for one hour of CLE/CPD credit.
Facciola will review the history of the latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While intended to expand cooperation among parties, the rule changes can yield the opposite result: a widening gulf between parties who understand EDD and those who do not.
His remarks will touch on issues including;
-- Enforcing standards of competence
-- Managing "asymmetrical" litigation, in which one side has a distinct advantage through its understanding of EDD
-- Leveraging experts and special masters
-- Balancing the roles of in-house and external counsel
-- Fostering cooperation and the future of EDD
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: marketwatch.com
Mirroring is not backup; backup is not archiving
Mirroring is not backup; and backup is not archiving. Keeping these tiers of storage straight can avert many headaches down the road.
Last week, Slashdot posted a cautionary tale about the importance of good backups. Startup company Lagomorphics, which offered a hosted blog space called Journalspace, failed to make regular backups of all of its users' material.
Keep in mind, the company's administrators thought they were making backups. The company mirrored all the users’ data on a second set of drives. The idea was that if one of the drives failed, then a complete copy of all the material would still exist on the mirrored drive.
But what the company did not foresee was a case in which the original database was corrupted, say by an operating system bug or a malicious administrator, then the material in the other database would also be corrupted, thanks to speedy replication of the originals by the mirroring software.
"There was no hardware failure. Both drives are operating fine. ... The data was simply gone,” a company-posted Web page about the data loss explained.
And that is indeed what happened. Something had wiped out six years of journal entries on the primary database, and a short while later, that empty database was copied over in its entirety to the mirrored site. The company tried the data restoration services of DriveSavers, but to no avail.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: gcn.com
By: GCN staff
Last week, Slashdot posted a cautionary tale about the importance of good backups. Startup company Lagomorphics, which offered a hosted blog space called Journalspace, failed to make regular backups of all of its users' material.
Keep in mind, the company's administrators thought they were making backups. The company mirrored all the users’ data on a second set of drives. The idea was that if one of the drives failed, then a complete copy of all the material would still exist on the mirrored drive.
But what the company did not foresee was a case in which the original database was corrupted, say by an operating system bug or a malicious administrator, then the material in the other database would also be corrupted, thanks to speedy replication of the originals by the mirroring software.
"There was no hardware failure. Both drives are operating fine. ... The data was simply gone,” a company-posted Web page about the data loss explained.
And that is indeed what happened. Something had wiped out six years of journal entries on the primary database, and a short while later, that empty database was copied over in its entirety to the mirrored site. The company tried the data restoration services of DriveSavers, but to no avail.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: gcn.com
By: GCN staff
Data Collection: Nothing Personal
At Lovells, we've been successfully using technology to address discovery needs for years. Recently, we have noticed a shift in what we are asking the technologies to do. It's not about the growth of electronic data, but rather, how we use technology to extract data and the type of information to be extracted.
The traditional strength of databases when used in discovery is in finding previously agreed words or phrases. But a key issue is to identify personal data that has been inadvertently collected as part of the discovery process. This is a growing issue for us as a multinational firm, because many of our users treat their work e-mail accounts as their own private accounts and don't delete e-mails after use. Couple this with unfocused collection practices, and a significant number of personal e-mails can end up in law firms' databases.
Isn't this just a European issue? Well, yes and no, in that the primary areas where this is a concern is for cases firmly anchored in Europe, But many U.S. organizations also do business in Europe -- and may need to harvest European-sourced data and comply with the relevant local data protection legislation.
In Europe, broadly speaking, data flows to the country with the highest level of protection which can complicate which laws are applicable. Talking of the flow of data, this is precisely how many multinational organizations now work, by moving resources from one country to another to take advantage of local economic regimes.
For example, although e-mail servers may be located in one country, the e-mails can still be accessed by users worldwide -- and consequently they may be subjecting the data to a number of applicable regulatory and data protection regimes.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Bill Onwusah
The traditional strength of databases when used in discovery is in finding previously agreed words or phrases. But a key issue is to identify personal data that has been inadvertently collected as part of the discovery process. This is a growing issue for us as a multinational firm, because many of our users treat their work e-mail accounts as their own private accounts and don't delete e-mails after use. Couple this with unfocused collection practices, and a significant number of personal e-mails can end up in law firms' databases.
Isn't this just a European issue? Well, yes and no, in that the primary areas where this is a concern is for cases firmly anchored in Europe, But many U.S. organizations also do business in Europe -- and may need to harvest European-sourced data and comply with the relevant local data protection legislation.
In Europe, broadly speaking, data flows to the country with the highest level of protection which can complicate which laws are applicable. Talking of the flow of data, this is precisely how many multinational organizations now work, by moving resources from one country to another to take advantage of local economic regimes.
For example, although e-mail servers may be located in one country, the e-mails can still be accessed by users worldwide -- and consequently they may be subjecting the data to a number of applicable regulatory and data protection regimes.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Bill Onwusah
Smartphones Pose Risks for All Executives
Like many executives, Barack Obama is an admitted BlackBerry addict. But advisers insist that on Inauguration Day he should give up the device, which, in the words of one senior aide, "never stopped crackling with e-mails" during the campaign. As president, Obama will be subject to a strict records-retention law called the Presidential Records Act, and wireless devices also pose security risks deemed too high for the commander in chief.
The question for in-house counsel: If a BlackBerry poses dangers for the nation's chief executive, should your chief executive officer be using one?
It may be difficult to imagine life without a BlackBerry. In many organizations, such devices have become vital to the smooth functioning of corporate teams at the highest levels of management, where decisions affecting hundreds of people and involving millions of dollars are made every day. Yet the same concerns worrying Obama's advisers also apply to corporate BlackBerry users. Computer usage, records retention and security have been and continue to be corporate duties. Obama's team is smart to be addressing the issue now, and in-house counsel and information technology departments should follow suit with respect to the use of portable communication devices.
Executives of both private and public companies have a responsibility to protect and preserve business records as set forth in several state and federal laws. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for instance, requires that companies preserve a variety of business records for specified periods of time. The law's definition of business record is broad enough to include many messages sent from mobile devices.
Moreover, when the prospect of litigation arises, communications related to the dispute sent from portable devices may become discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If there is no system established to preserve wireless communications, litigants may be incapable of complying with discovery requests and suffer court sanctions. More worrisome is a situation in which an exculpatory document is lost in the wireless ether.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: William A. McComas
The question for in-house counsel: If a BlackBerry poses dangers for the nation's chief executive, should your chief executive officer be using one?
It may be difficult to imagine life without a BlackBerry. In many organizations, such devices have become vital to the smooth functioning of corporate teams at the highest levels of management, where decisions affecting hundreds of people and involving millions of dollars are made every day. Yet the same concerns worrying Obama's advisers also apply to corporate BlackBerry users. Computer usage, records retention and security have been and continue to be corporate duties. Obama's team is smart to be addressing the issue now, and in-house counsel and information technology departments should follow suit with respect to the use of portable communication devices.
Executives of both private and public companies have a responsibility to protect and preserve business records as set forth in several state and federal laws. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for instance, requires that companies preserve a variety of business records for specified periods of time. The law's definition of business record is broad enough to include many messages sent from mobile devices.
Moreover, when the prospect of litigation arises, communications related to the dispute sent from portable devices may become discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If there is no system established to preserve wireless communications, litigants may be incapable of complying with discovery requests and suffer court sanctions. More worrisome is a situation in which an exculpatory document is lost in the wireless ether.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: William A. McComas
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Obama Administration Could Mean More Compliance Regs
Just as accounting scandals earlier this decade led to new regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley, last year's global financial meltdown coupled with Democratic control of the White House and Congress seems like a recipe for a host of new compliance regulations — and thus more business for storage vendors and more work for storage administrators.
But the changes won't stop with an Obama presidency and the 111th Congress. The leaders of the Group of 20 industrial and emerging countries (G-20) have been meeting to consider global regulations aimed at raising bank capital standards and regulating hedge funds, with European leaders at the forefront of the new financial market regulation.
While it might be years before all this results in any kind of international consensus, another round of regulation is almost certainly at hand.
"It is extremely likely that we will see more regulation in the financial markets as a result of the current economic crisis," said Brian Babineau, an analyst with Enterprise Strategy Group. "In addition, a Democratic president with a Democratic legislation is likely to increase regulation on other industries, including healthcare. The interesting thing to watch will be what rules are put into place when the government bails out other industries like the automotive sector."
Regulations to improve corporate governance and transparency will likely be at the forefront of regulatory efforts, which will have consequences for data storage and management.
"An increased focus on governance usually means that companies will have to create more business records and save them for extended periods of time," said Babineau. "Because much of today's business records are created electronically, this should drive storage demands."
A few years ago, for example, legislation such as SOX and SEC Rule 17a-4 raised the importance of information storage in auditing, as organizations were forced to save more data for longer periods of time. SEC Rule 17a-4, in particular, included a non-eraseability and non-rewriteability requirements for storing business records. This opened the door to disk-based storage, moving archival storage beyond optical or tape systems.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: enterprisestorageforum.com
By: Drew Robb
But the changes won't stop with an Obama presidency and the 111th Congress. The leaders of the Group of 20 industrial and emerging countries (G-20) have been meeting to consider global regulations aimed at raising bank capital standards and regulating hedge funds, with European leaders at the forefront of the new financial market regulation.
While it might be years before all this results in any kind of international consensus, another round of regulation is almost certainly at hand.
"It is extremely likely that we will see more regulation in the financial markets as a result of the current economic crisis," said Brian Babineau, an analyst with Enterprise Strategy Group. "In addition, a Democratic president with a Democratic legislation is likely to increase regulation on other industries, including healthcare. The interesting thing to watch will be what rules are put into place when the government bails out other industries like the automotive sector."
Regulations to improve corporate governance and transparency will likely be at the forefront of regulatory efforts, which will have consequences for data storage and management.
"An increased focus on governance usually means that companies will have to create more business records and save them for extended periods of time," said Babineau. "Because much of today's business records are created electronically, this should drive storage demands."
A few years ago, for example, legislation such as SOX and SEC Rule 17a-4 raised the importance of information storage in auditing, as organizations were forced to save more data for longer periods of time. SEC Rule 17a-4, in particular, included a non-eraseability and non-rewriteability requirements for storing business records. This opened the door to disk-based storage, moving archival storage beyond optical or tape systems.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: enterprisestorageforum.com
By: Drew Robb
NJICLE Outlines Challenges of E-Discovery
In a seminar titled E-Discovery for Litigators and Transactional Attorneys: Is Paper Discovery a Thing of the Past? the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education will present an overview of the increasing importance of electronic discovery as well as practical advice for handling it.
On Tuesday, February 24 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m., the timely topic will be explored at the New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Leaders of the course will guide attendees through the key points of working confidently with e-discovery, including the most up-to-date developments. Participants will learn how to maintain their ethical footing while working through e-discovery requests. Other topics will include pre-litigation considerations, cost shifting, privilege issues, common pitfalls, spoliation and sanctions, and a discussion of state and federal rules.
Faculty for the class will be Stephen M. Orlofsky, Blank Rome LLP; Margaret Raymond-Flood, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA; and Robert Kleeger, The Intelligence Group, LLC.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: metrocorpcounsel.com
On Tuesday, February 24 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m., the timely topic will be explored at the New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Leaders of the course will guide attendees through the key points of working confidently with e-discovery, including the most up-to-date developments. Participants will learn how to maintain their ethical footing while working through e-discovery requests. Other topics will include pre-litigation considerations, cost shifting, privilege issues, common pitfalls, spoliation and sanctions, and a discussion of state and federal rules.
Faculty for the class will be Stephen M. Orlofsky, Blank Rome LLP; Margaret Raymond-Flood, Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA; and Robert Kleeger, The Intelligence Group, LLC.
For More Information: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: metrocorpcounsel.com
In From The Cold: Taking Control Of Electronic Discovery By Bringing It In-House
The Editor interviews Frank Wu, managing director in the Litigation, Restructuring and Investigative Services Solution Group of Protiviti Inc. Protiviti is a global business consulting and internal audit firm composed of experts specializing in risk, advisory and transaction services. The firm, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Half International, helps solve problems in finance and transactions, operations, technology, litigation, governance, risk, and compliance.
Editor: Electronic discovery issues started making headlines when the federal courts changed their procedural rules to address the unique nature of electronically stored information. Here we are, two years later, and e-discovery is still making news. Why is it taking so long for companies to come to grips with the new rules?
Wu: We are still in a transition period. Ultimately, the new rules should make legal discovery more consistent and predictable. But right now, two factors are making it difficult for companies to quickly develop enterprise-wide answers to the demands of e-discovery.
First, whenever changes to court rules are enacted, the understanding of those rules continues to evolve as courts address specific problems. Knowing this, some organizations have wanted to see how the courts would interpret and apply the rules before committing their companies to expensive solutions that might need considerable modification later.
Second, the serious jolts to the economy during the last year or so have caused many companies to rearrange priorities and tighten their belts. Unfortunately, the pain and drain of e-discovery continues to impact both the top and bottom line. A single failure in discovery can undermine all those cost-saving efforts, so corporations are wary of false economies that carry high risks of loss.
Editor: Have you seen any trends emerge as companies adjust to both the evolving discovery rules and an uncertain economy?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: metrocorpcounsel.com
Editor: Electronic discovery issues started making headlines when the federal courts changed their procedural rules to address the unique nature of electronically stored information. Here we are, two years later, and e-discovery is still making news. Why is it taking so long for companies to come to grips with the new rules?
Wu: We are still in a transition period. Ultimately, the new rules should make legal discovery more consistent and predictable. But right now, two factors are making it difficult for companies to quickly develop enterprise-wide answers to the demands of e-discovery.
First, whenever changes to court rules are enacted, the understanding of those rules continues to evolve as courts address specific problems. Knowing this, some organizations have wanted to see how the courts would interpret and apply the rules before committing their companies to expensive solutions that might need considerable modification later.
Second, the serious jolts to the economy during the last year or so have caused many companies to rearrange priorities and tighten their belts. Unfortunately, the pain and drain of e-discovery continues to impact both the top and bottom line. A single failure in discovery can undermine all those cost-saving efforts, so corporations are wary of false economies that carry high risks of loss.
Editor: Have you seen any trends emerge as companies adjust to both the evolving discovery rules and an uncertain economy?
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: metrocorpcounsel.com
Governor's attorneys settle lawsuit about e-mails
No answer determined on "holes" in Sunshine Law.
A week before he leaves office, attorneys for Gov. Matt Blunt settled a lawsuit alleging he and his staff "knowingly and purposely" violated the state's open records laws by deleting e-mails.
Under the deal reached Monday in Cole County Court, the governor admitted no wrongdoing and investigators originally appointed by Attorney General Jay Nixon will get access to tens of thousands of pages of e-mails from fall 2007.
But the agreement between Blunt's attorneys and two court-appointed special assistant attorneys general does not address "holes" in the Sunshine Law, the attorneys in the case involved said.
Attorneys and investigators representing Nixon's office had hoped to go to trial and get a judge to determine definitively if executive branch e-mails are public documents, subject to disclosure.
Current statutes are too ambiguous, they said, and document retention laws don't clearly state e-mails have to be saved.
Louis Leonatti, a Republican court-appointed special assistant attorney general, said the Sunshine Law needs to be adapted to 21st Century communication.
"E-mails are taking the place of telephone conversations," Leonatti said. "You couldn't get telephone conversations under the Sunshine Law. So we've got to update the law to take care of technology."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: news-leader.com
By: Chad Livengood
A week before he leaves office, attorneys for Gov. Matt Blunt settled a lawsuit alleging he and his staff "knowingly and purposely" violated the state's open records laws by deleting e-mails.
Under the deal reached Monday in Cole County Court, the governor admitted no wrongdoing and investigators originally appointed by Attorney General Jay Nixon will get access to tens of thousands of pages of e-mails from fall 2007.
But the agreement between Blunt's attorneys and two court-appointed special assistant attorneys general does not address "holes" in the Sunshine Law, the attorneys in the case involved said.
Attorneys and investigators representing Nixon's office had hoped to go to trial and get a judge to determine definitively if executive branch e-mails are public documents, subject to disclosure.
Current statutes are too ambiguous, they said, and document retention laws don't clearly state e-mails have to be saved.
Louis Leonatti, a Republican court-appointed special assistant attorney general, said the Sunshine Law needs to be adapted to 21st Century communication.
"E-mails are taking the place of telephone conversations," Leonatti said. "You couldn't get telephone conversations under the Sunshine Law. So we've got to update the law to take care of technology."
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: news-leader.com
By: Chad Livengood
Finding Your Way Through Discovery by Data Mapping
For many in-house counsel, staying afloat in today's litigation and financial environment has become increasingly difficult. The amount of data that flows through companies has exploded while compliance measures have increased and deadlines for discovery have gotten shorter. The current economic troubles can slam legal departments in several ways -- not only are companies tightening their belts wherever possible, but certain types of lawsuits tend to increase during financial downturns.
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the number of discrimination complaints increased 9 percent in 2007. The EEOC speculates that at least some of that growth is due to "changing economic conditions." And if the past year is a guide, discrimination lawsuits could certainly increase as the economy looks turbulent for the foreseeable future, and organizations will be forced to continue downsizing their workforce.
The struggle to stay on top of litigation in 2009 could get worse before it gets better for corporate legal departments. It's enough to make many wish they had a field guide to find their way through the forest of lawsuits. Fortunately, there are ways that in-house counsel can proactively prepare for litigation and regulatory and compliance issues, easing the burden of discovery while increasing the defensibility of their processes and procedures. Developing a data map of an organization's information flow is one important step.
WHAT IS A DATA MAP?
A data map is a visual reproduction of the ways that electronically stored information (ESI) moves throughout companies, from the point it is created to its ultimate destruction as part of the organization's document retention program. At its heart, data maps address how people within the organization communicate with one another and with others outside the organization.
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Brett Tarr
Monday, January 05, 2009
Lowering Overall Costs By Implementing A Long Term Data Preservation Strategy
Data growth rates, the high operational costs of managing more storage than ever before, and a national power grid that is not likely to keep up with power demands in the near future is creating a perfect storm that is driving enterprises to look at new approaches to data management. The concepts and technologies are here today that will allow enterprises to achieve an order of magnitude reduction in the costs and power to manage storage by harnessing information about data usage patterns in their environments and making evolutionary changes to their data management processes based on these patterns.
First, if enterprises are not already tracking this data, they need to begin tracking and analyzing file access by age. As they begin to better understand the variables driving file access over time, enterprises can introduce additional measures (such as frequency of access) but file age is a simple, approachable metric to use to begin to address this problem now.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: datacollectiononline.com
First, if enterprises are not already tracking this data, they need to begin tracking and analyzing file access by age. As they begin to better understand the variables driving file access over time, enterprises can introduce additional measures (such as frequency of access) but file age is a simple, approachable metric to use to begin to address this problem now.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: datacollectiononline.com
More thoughts on 2009
So in my last post I might have mentioned that I'd had my fill of year prediction and round-up stories. And you might also, having probably read nothing but over the last week and a half orgy of chocolate, wine and New Year sales. But I'm afraid there's very little else in the news to talk about at this time of year, as a cursory look at the headlines in the Nationals over the last fortnight will probably attest to. So here goes another attempt to look into the future and discern a few future trends in the content management space.
Firstly, e-discovery. It's already massive in the States, thanks to the ammendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) which broadened the type of documents subject to legal discovery to include all electronically-stored information (ESI). UK companies operating in the States are also beholden to these new rules, which stipulate that word processing documents, e-mails, voice mail and instant messages, blogs, backup tapes and database files are now all subject to legal discovery laws.
Vendors like Autonomy are certainly cashing-in on the projected increase in demand for tools that help to archive and retrieve electronically-stored information. The search giant bought archiving vendor Zantaz and data capture and records management firm Meridio to make it one of the best placed to offer its customers holistic e-discovery solutions. Proactive information risk management will become increasingly front-of-mind for chief executives, especially after a few high profile court cases.
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: blog.iwr.co.uk
By: Phil Muncaster
Friday, January 02, 2009
How To Encrypt Your Valuable Business Data?
Keeping your business data secure is vital. Lose it and you risk the confidence of your customers, partners, and employees, not to mention the threat of litigation. Encrypting data can help you keep it secure, but how you encrypt makes all the difference.
According to data released in 2008 by Forrester Research, 45 percent of companies are evaluating or planning to buy disk encryption software to protect against information theft. The impetus for this shift is simple: Not only does encryption technology make it harder to pluck confidential information off purloined technology, such as laptops, but state disclosure laws regard these thefts differently.
"If it's encrypted and it's stolen, you don't have to report it," says Cherie Mitchell, COO and principal at LuciData, referring to state privacy laws that require companies to disclose the theft or loss of unprotected notebook computers that may contain sensitive, personally identifiable information that could be linked to a specific individual. Due in part to disclosure laws, LuciData, an internal management and computer forensics consulting firm, adopted whole disk encryption, aka full disk encryption, which encrypts every bit of information contained on a company's hard drives.
There are two types of full disk encryption: It's either in hardware form offered by computer drive companies, notably Seagate, or it's sold as an option by notebook computer companies. Lenovo, for example, offers Seagate's full disk encryption as a $25 to $30 premium option, says Stacy Cannady, director of client services at Lenovo. One downside with drive-level encryption is that it's hard to manage, Cannady says. That's why there's an entire category of stand-alone whole disk encryption software emerging. Among the options in this segment are Check Point Full Disk Encryption, Encryption Plus Hard Disk from GuardianEdge, McAfee Endpoint Encryption, PGP Whole Disk Encryption, and SafeGuard Easy from Utimaco Safeware. Symantec's strategy is an OEM deal with GuardianEdge. Pricing for these packages ranges from about $100 per seat to about $250. The enterprise and ultimate editions of Windows Vista also include a full disk encryption feature called BitLocker.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: bmighty.com
By: Heather Clancy
According to data released in 2008 by Forrester Research, 45 percent of companies are evaluating or planning to buy disk encryption software to protect against information theft. The impetus for this shift is simple: Not only does encryption technology make it harder to pluck confidential information off purloined technology, such as laptops, but state disclosure laws regard these thefts differently.
"If it's encrypted and it's stolen, you don't have to report it," says Cherie Mitchell, COO and principal at LuciData, referring to state privacy laws that require companies to disclose the theft or loss of unprotected notebook computers that may contain sensitive, personally identifiable information that could be linked to a specific individual. Due in part to disclosure laws, LuciData, an internal management and computer forensics consulting firm, adopted whole disk encryption, aka full disk encryption, which encrypts every bit of information contained on a company's hard drives.
There are two types of full disk encryption: It's either in hardware form offered by computer drive companies, notably Seagate, or it's sold as an option by notebook computer companies. Lenovo, for example, offers Seagate's full disk encryption as a $25 to $30 premium option, says Stacy Cannady, director of client services at Lenovo. One downside with drive-level encryption is that it's hard to manage, Cannady says. That's why there's an entire category of stand-alone whole disk encryption software emerging. Among the options in this segment are Check Point Full Disk Encryption, Encryption Plus Hard Disk from GuardianEdge, McAfee Endpoint Encryption, PGP Whole Disk Encryption, and SafeGuard Easy from Utimaco Safeware. Symantec's strategy is an OEM deal with GuardianEdge. Pricing for these packages ranges from about $100 per seat to about $250. The enterprise and ultimate editions of Windows Vista also include a full disk encryption feature called BitLocker.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: bmighty.com
By: Heather Clancy
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Global CIO: The Top 10 CIO Issues For 2009
What should be on your agenda next year: A CIO-centric blend of business and tech issues that will help you increase business and customer value.
Given what's going on in the economy these days, maybe the No. 1 item on this list should be "Stay employed." But we figure you've all got that one nailed, so we've focused on a CIO-oriented blend of business and technology issues that in the end represent opportunities for you and your team to drive greater business value and customer value. And, to be sure, many other issues could have made this list -- we're assuming as givens things like increase revenue, make a profit, turn out great products, etc.
Along with each of the Top 10 CIO-centric issues, we've included at least one thematic piece published in 2008 by InformationWeek that offers valuable perspectives on these top-priority subjects. Please let us know what you think at bevans@techweb.com:
1. Customer-Facing Innovation. While it's essential for CIOs and your teams to be innovating across all parts of your operation, the greatest value in 2009 will come from efforts that directly connect your brands, products, services, and capabilities with your customers. In fact, in 2009, I think we'll see this term shift from "customer-facing" to "customer-embracing" to signify the move from the largely passive approach of merely facing your customers to the more-active and -engaged notion of embracing. Two articles that offer significant insights into this concept are this blog post introducing "The New Age of Innovation" microsite we created in April with authors C.K. Prahalad and M.S. Krishnan for their superb new book of that name; and a revealing look inside one of the top consumer brands in the world via Mary Hayes' "Coca-Cola's CIO Talks Innovation".
2. Attacking The 80/20 Ratio. Just as customer-facing innovation is the top outward-facing CIO priority for 2009, the inward-looking top priority is attacking the maintenance glutton that sucks up 75% or even 80% of your precious IT budget. Unless this beast is confronted and defeated, you're going to face an ugly 2009 with little or no money available for innovation, and that inability to push the company forward will, sadly, enhance the stereotype of you and your team as a cost center that impedes progress rather than accelerating it. In that context, we're happy to provide a richly detailed account for how to make it happen with Chris Murphy's superb "HP Goes All In With IT Transformation".
3. The Challenging Economy. Making your already-difficult job even a little more demanding, the current global economic mess is forcing CIOs to find ways to pursue the top two agenda items while also slashing away at costs. To see how some of your peers are tackling those challenges, check out another great piece by Chris Murphy called "How CIOs Are Setting IT Strategy Amid Economic Uncertainty".
4. The Strategic CIO. And somehow in 2009, even as you're dealing with those three issues above, you'll have to make some time to continue finding additional ways to enhance your role as a strategic business leader within your organization. While that certainly implies an open-ended set of possibilities, here are a couple of pieces that will offer some ideas of what you should be doing, "Tomorrow's CIO: The Qualifications," and what you should definitely not be doing, "Two Flavors of CIO, Each Leaving An Aftertaste".
5. Cloud Computing. Is it safe? Is it practical? Is it The End Of IT? Is it right for you and your company? InformationWeek's John Foley, who recently launched an excellent new site called Plug Into The Cloud, offers some CIO perspectives in his insightful overview, "CIOs On Cloud Computing".
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Bob Evans
Given what's going on in the economy these days, maybe the No. 1 item on this list should be "Stay employed." But we figure you've all got that one nailed, so we've focused on a CIO-oriented blend of business and technology issues that in the end represent opportunities for you and your team to drive greater business value and customer value. And, to be sure, many other issues could have made this list -- we're assuming as givens things like increase revenue, make a profit, turn out great products, etc.
Along with each of the Top 10 CIO-centric issues, we've included at least one thematic piece published in 2008 by InformationWeek that offers valuable perspectives on these top-priority subjects. Please let us know what you think at bevans@techweb.com:
1. Customer-Facing Innovation. While it's essential for CIOs and your teams to be innovating across all parts of your operation, the greatest value in 2009 will come from efforts that directly connect your brands, products, services, and capabilities with your customers. In fact, in 2009, I think we'll see this term shift from "customer-facing" to "customer-embracing" to signify the move from the largely passive approach of merely facing your customers to the more-active and -engaged notion of embracing. Two articles that offer significant insights into this concept are this blog post introducing "The New Age of Innovation" microsite we created in April with authors C.K. Prahalad and M.S. Krishnan for their superb new book of that name; and a revealing look inside one of the top consumer brands in the world via Mary Hayes' "Coca-Cola's CIO Talks Innovation".
2. Attacking The 80/20 Ratio. Just as customer-facing innovation is the top outward-facing CIO priority for 2009, the inward-looking top priority is attacking the maintenance glutton that sucks up 75% or even 80% of your precious IT budget. Unless this beast is confronted and defeated, you're going to face an ugly 2009 with little or no money available for innovation, and that inability to push the company forward will, sadly, enhance the stereotype of you and your team as a cost center that impedes progress rather than accelerating it. In that context, we're happy to provide a richly detailed account for how to make it happen with Chris Murphy's superb "HP Goes All In With IT Transformation".
3. The Challenging Economy. Making your already-difficult job even a little more demanding, the current global economic mess is forcing CIOs to find ways to pursue the top two agenda items while also slashing away at costs. To see how some of your peers are tackling those challenges, check out another great piece by Chris Murphy called "How CIOs Are Setting IT Strategy Amid Economic Uncertainty".
4. The Strategic CIO. And somehow in 2009, even as you're dealing with those three issues above, you'll have to make some time to continue finding additional ways to enhance your role as a strategic business leader within your organization. While that certainly implies an open-ended set of possibilities, here are a couple of pieces that will offer some ideas of what you should be doing, "Tomorrow's CIO: The Qualifications," and what you should definitely not be doing, "Two Flavors of CIO, Each Leaving An Aftertaste".
5. Cloud Computing. Is it safe? Is it practical? Is it The End Of IT? Is it right for you and your company? InformationWeek's John Foley, who recently launched an excellent new site called Plug Into The Cloud, offers some CIO perspectives in his insightful overview, "CIOs On Cloud Computing".
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: informationweek.com
By: Bob Evans
Jeane A. Thomas, Partner, Chair, E-Discovery and Information Management Group, Crowell & Moring to Speak at KC’s Event on Strategic E-Discovery on 1/8
The Knowledge Congress, the leading producer of regulatory focused webinars announced today that Jeane A. Thomas, Partner, Chair, E-Discovery and Information Management Group, Crowell & Moring will speak at the Knowledge Congress’ upcoming webinar entitled: “Strategic E-Discovery: Taking Steps to Avoid Litigation’s Black Hole”. This 2-hour event is scheduled on January 8th, 2009, Thursday, at 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM ET. (For further details of the event and an updated list of panelists, please visit: http://www.knowledgecongress.org/event_2008_SE-D_update.html)
Litigation is an unavoidable consequence of doing business. Most of the work begins many months or even years before the parties go to court. These days, attorneys must invest heavily in strategic pre-trial discovery to prevail in court. Attorneys must understand the many emerging trends and issues in the field of Strategic E-Discovery in order not to fall victim to its many pitfalls.
The Knowledge Congress is assembling a panel of distinguished professionals and key regulators to provide guidance to organizations and legal professionals that will be primarily affected by litigation and issues surrounding Strategic E-Discovery. The panel will present their findings, which include “Best Practices” in a two-hour Live webinar.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: pr.com
Litigation is an unavoidable consequence of doing business. Most of the work begins many months or even years before the parties go to court. These days, attorneys must invest heavily in strategic pre-trial discovery to prevail in court. Attorneys must understand the many emerging trends and issues in the field of Strategic E-Discovery in order not to fall victim to its many pitfalls.
The Knowledge Congress is assembling a panel of distinguished professionals and key regulators to provide guidance to organizations and legal professionals that will be primarily affected by litigation and issues surrounding Strategic E-Discovery. The panel will present their findings, which include “Best Practices” in a two-hour Live webinar.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: pr.com
Legal Innovations: Don't Bet Against the Web
When a group of lawyers, and one economist, gathered in San Diego earlier this month for a conference called Leading Legal Innovation, much of the discussion focused on parallels between the legal profession and U.S. automakers, and the two industries' shared resistance to innovation. If, as most at the conference believed, significant change in the legal market is inevitable, what will the new world of legal services look like?
As in the world at large, the influence of the Web will increase. "The power of the Web is immense," says Harvey Anderson, the general counsel of Mozilla Corporation. "It will make available more information faster than you can imagine. If you’re putting yourself in a position where you’re betting against the Web, you will lose." Is the legal profession doing that? "I think as a whole they are," said Anderson. "But they don’t realize that’s what’s going on."
Lawyers, he explained, are trained to think of their knowledge and work as proprietary. But that flies in the face of the Web’s "open source" culture. Anderson recalls a patent matter he handled where he asked the relevant Web community for information about prior art. "I found more prior art in five days than I did for a large sum in legal fees," he said.
"Lawyers as a whole are not cognizant of the mountain of information available that will encroach on what attorneys traditionally do," he said. He notes that his internal clients at Mozilla get a good part of their legal information directly from Web, and not from him or outside lawyers. When the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals addressed the application of copyright law to open source licenses in Jacobsen v. Katzer, his executives went directly to blogs for updates. "All my clients knew about the decision before I could talk to them." He added, "If you get a newsletter a week or two later from a law firm, that’s old at that point."
To Continue Reading: Click Here----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Susan Beck
ILTA Takes the Lead on Green
The green movement is one area of social responsibility where professional associations can have a profound impact by demonstrating leadership. Going green is a commitment to responsibility for global climate change, the quality of our air and water, and the sustainability of our natural resources. Like many associations in our legal community, the International Legal Technology Association is leading by example.
ILTA is a peer-to-peer organization whose members work in private law firms, or corporate, government or judicial law departments. We have more than 10,000 active members from about 1,250 organizations that range in size from five attorneys to several thousand. We help our members understand and excel in the technical, strategy and management challenges they face. We are also committed to assisting our members advance green policies, and this year, we practiced what we preached at our annual educational conference.
Last year's meeting was held August 25-28, at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Conference Center, near Dallas. We had 1,422 members, 1,500 vendors representing 193 vendor companies, 146 consultants and 15 press attendees. It included four days of educational programs, an exhibit hall, myriad networking opportunities and events by related organizations, such as Women in E-Discovery, and the G100 Legal CIO Forum.
Our four-person Site Selection Committee chose the Texas venue in 2004. When we started planning logistics in 2006, a top priority was to work with the Gaylord management team about green and social responsibility policies.
At the same time, we began evaluating venues for 2011 to 2014, and added socially responsible practices to our criteria. It has been very interesting to see facilities that were initially unresponsive begin to see the need to provide positive answers to our concerns. While ILTA has always been socially responsible, this type of outreach to our hotel vendors was a big affirmative step for us.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Randi Mayes
ILTA is a peer-to-peer organization whose members work in private law firms, or corporate, government or judicial law departments. We have more than 10,000 active members from about 1,250 organizations that range in size from five attorneys to several thousand. We help our members understand and excel in the technical, strategy and management challenges they face. We are also committed to assisting our members advance green policies, and this year, we practiced what we preached at our annual educational conference.
Last year's meeting was held August 25-28, at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Conference Center, near Dallas. We had 1,422 members, 1,500 vendors representing 193 vendor companies, 146 consultants and 15 press attendees. It included four days of educational programs, an exhibit hall, myriad networking opportunities and events by related organizations, such as Women in E-Discovery, and the G100 Legal CIO Forum.
Our four-person Site Selection Committee chose the Texas venue in 2004. When we started planning logistics in 2006, a top priority was to work with the Gaylord management team about green and social responsibility policies.
At the same time, we began evaluating venues for 2011 to 2014, and added socially responsible practices to our criteria. It has been very interesting to see facilities that were initially unresponsive begin to see the need to provide positive answers to our concerns. While ILTA has always been socially responsible, this type of outreach to our hotel vendors was a big affirmative step for us.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
----------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Randi Mayes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
