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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
