Thursday, March 31, 2011

What can companies do to monitor employees on social media?

Q. As an employer, what action can I take to monitor employees who may be communicating about the company through social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter?

For better and for worse, social media have become an unavoidable aspect of our personal and professional lives – an outlet through which we can express our opinions on myriad topics, including our employers. A proper understanding of an employer's right to monitor such communications requires an understanding of applicable federal and state laws.

Employees often believe that their employers have violated their right to engage in free speech under the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment right to free speech generally does not apply to private employers and therefore does not provide protection for communications made via social media. Despite the limits of constitutional protection, employers must be aware of certain federal and state laws that, under certain circumstances, protect the privacy of employees' online communications.

Although employers may generally monitor publicly available social networking mediums, the law does not permit employers to monitor private sites and communications.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: reuters.com
By: Bill Rigby and Foo Yun Chee

The Lawyer Who Fell From the Cloud

I like Google. I use a lot of Google's services and software. So when a client sent me a link to sign up for Google's Chrome OS beta, I jumped at it. I didn't think I would qualify, but I thought it would be interesting and fun. Well, that lasted about four weeks.

When I returned from vacation just before the New Year, there was a non-descript box waiting for me. I didn't remember ordering anything, but inside the box was another box that looked like electronics. Much to my surprise, when I opened the box I found a Google laptop: the Cr-48 Chrome Notebook.

Instantly, I knew what the reaction would be at home. My son is a computer and electrical engineering major at the University of Florida. I knew he would be jealous. His exact words were "not fair!" My daughter, a high school senior with pretty good technology skills, was similarly disappointed in what appeared to be my good fortune.

I inserted the battery slice and opened the computer. The Chrome logo displayed almost instantly. The machine is small. It is about the size of a news magazine and about an inch thick. It has a built-in webcam and Verizon wireless data card, which provided 100 MB of data free per month.

The exterior finish is a matte black, similar to my Lenovo ThinkPad T500. A touchpad is used for navigation. There are no Function or Caps Lock keys, but the keyboard is similar to a MacBook. Since I'm not a Mac user, that didn't matter much to me.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Marc S. Dobin

We’ve Preserved Everything – Now What?

One of the first instructions that IT practitioners will hear from the legal department is “preserve everything”. It doesn’t matter what the context is or whether the information may or may not be relevant, at the first pass a lawyer will always tell you to preserve everything in sight. The problem with preserving information is that preservation is only half the battle – you need to be able to make use of it somewhere down the line and that’s a fact that sometimes gets lost in the shouting.

We often run into conflicts created by the identification and retention of data when working between the Legal and IT departments at client locations. Lawyers will be looking for the widest possible retention policies and practices. They do not realize that overly broad retention efforts may have a negative impact on the daily operations within IT. On the other hand, many lawyers just don’t care if that does happen. They have gone to multiple eDiscovery conferences where it has been drilled into them that if they allow their IT people free reign, the data will be deleted, the case will be compromised, their hair will fall out and their yearly bonus will go “poof” (again). Consequently, their only response to every matter will be to invoke their best James Earl Jones impression and intone “Keep EVERYTHING”.

IT people, on the other hand, are convinced that lawyers exaggerate everything. If you listen to the lawyers, the sky is always falling. You’re always “betting the farm” or engaged in some other similar process that is intended to let you know that Armageddon Is Here (again). IT feels that those dudes in Legal are just too highly strung. After all, every time they see a lawyer come running into the IT department, he has his tie and collar open, is red faced, puffing from running too far and trying his damndest to wheeze out that feeble Darth Vader impression. It’s really sad, especially since the lawyer should know that IT people spend their off hours in multiplayer online games dispatching Evil Overlords just for kicks. For them, neutralizing one pudgy lawyer is a snap.

To Continue Reading: Click Here

---------------------------------------------------------

Source: eDiscovery Journal

By: Kevin Esposito

Cloud computing dominates data center agenda, says survey

Cloud computing adoption among data center managers has snowballed in the last year with more than 70 percent of respondents who have implemented the technology or seriously considering it, according to a survey by AFCOM, a data center association.

AFCOM surveyed 358 data center managers and found a cloud computing sea change. In 2010, 14.9 percent of data center managers implemented cloud computing in their facilities. For AFCOM’s 2011 survey, 36.6 percent of respondents implemented cloud computing and another 35.1 percent were seriously considering it.

The takeaway: 80 percent to 90 percent of data centers will have some form of cloud computing in the next five years, said AFCOM.

To Continue Reading: Click Here

-------------------------------------------------

Source: ZDNet

By: Larry Dignan

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Social networking policy essential to limit risk to businesses

Most businesses know the benefits of social networking sites, but many aren't aware of the risks of opening up such channels of communication, according to online security firm commissum. The solution? Arm employees with social networking guidelines.

Companies now use social networking sites for a wide variety of functions - recruitment and business networking (LinkedIn), brand awareness and loyalty (Facebook/Twitter/YouTube) and keeping tabs on reviews and performance (Yelp).

However, many of those companies don't consider the risks associated with social networking activity before launching themselves into the space.

Risks recently identified by commissum include:

- Vulnerability of IT infrastructure from malicious software downloaded from social networks
- Involuntary disclosure of sensitive business information
- Negative or unfair criticisms in a public arena that rivals could use to their advantage.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: bizreport.com
By: Helen Legg

Report: Amazon Cloud Drive Could be Illegal

Record labels are upset over Amazon's Cloud Drive announcement when the online retailer failed to address license-related negotiations

Just yesterday, Amazon announced its new cloud-based storage service called Cloud Drive, which is quite a feat considering the online retailer jumped ahead of huge tech companies like Apple and Google in the race for music streaming services. But now, the music industry is stepping in, and could possibly slow Amazon's progress.

Cloud-based music storage has become a popular option for those who use multiple devices. For companies like Amazon, this method of music streaming is a great alternative to relying on CD sales. While other companies continue working on their versions of cloud-based services, such as Apple's MobileMe music component called a "locker," and Google's music service that was rumored to be released with the new Honeycomb launch (but reports are now saying that Google execs are still in the midst of chatting with record labels), Amazon leaped ahead of the game with Cloud Drive, which offers 5 GB of online storage for free and saves album or MP3 purchases to the cloud automatically.

Customers can upgrade to 20 GB of space by purchasing an MP3 album. Also, the Cloud Player allows users to play their music through a PC, Mac or Android-based phones. However, those with an Apple iPhone cannot partake in Amazon's new service.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: dailytech.com
By: Tiffany Kaiser

Restaurant Chain Must Pay $110,000 for Data Breach

A Boston-area restaurant company was fined $110,000 for failing to patch a security hole that resulted in the electronic theft of credit card information from tens of thousands of customers. It is the first penalty levied under the state’s new data privacy act.

According to a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Briar Group LLC neglected to remove malicious software from its computer systems, an oversight that enabled computer hackers to access customers’ credit and debit card data between April – Dec. 2009.

“When consumers use their credit and debit cards at Massachusetts establishments, they have an expectation that their personal information will be properly protected,” Coakley said in a press release. “In this instance, the Briar Group did not take proper protections to protect customers’ personal information.”

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: securitynewsdaily.com
By: Matt Liebowitz

Will Lifestyle Discrimination Statutes Protect Employee Social Media Use?

Provisions on political, recreational, and union activity are not as broad as they seem

Employers in an employment-at-will state like New York enjoy broad power over employees in the absence of a contract: They may terminate, transfer, reassign job duties, and diminish the pay and benefits of their employees, checked only by limited obstacles imposed by a network of anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, and similar laws. This power reaches even beyond the boundaries of the workplace. Few at-will employees in New York enjoy any protection against random drug testing by their employers, Matter of Langley, 12 A.D.3d 753 (3d Dept. 2004); and employees have lost their employment through off-duty drunken-driving arrests. Green v. Wells Fargo Alarm Service, 192 A.D.2d 463 (1st Dept. 1993). As venues for obtaining information about individuals become increasingly numerous, and progressively cheaper, employers have more options for learning about -- and reaching into -- employees' private lives.

Perhaps inevitably, employer interest in employees' off-duty activity has found itself on a collision course with the dramatic rise of social media, such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter (whose use is not always confined to off-duty hours) and its empowerment of groups of like-minded individuals. The development of social media has expanded an employee's audience from a handful of immediate listeners at a local happy hour to, potentially, any user of the internet: a dramatic increase in the number of individuals to whom even the lowest-ranking employee can now "bash the boss," or offer up any other number of thoughts, opinions, facts, or images of potential interest to his or her employer. Against the backdrop of this conflict, confusion has frequently reigned in the workplace over what protections employees enjoy with respect to their social media communications.

A few states, including New York, have imposed statutory limitations on employers' ability to take employment actions on the basis of employees' "lawful" actions. So-called "lifestyle discrimination" statutes offer protection to certain activities that could otherwise be legitimate bases for employment decisions.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Karlee S. BolaƱos and Kyle W. Sturgess

Monday, March 28, 2011

Search Method Validation or eDiscovery Standards? What is Really Needed for eDiscovery Search and Retrieval to be Successful?

Guest Blog by SONYA SIGLER, Vice President and General Counsel of Cataphora, Inc.

I have spent a bit of time over the last couple of weeks thinking about and mulling over Jason Baron’s guest post on coming up with best practices or standards in eDiscovery. See Jason Baron’s In Search of Quality: Is it Time for E-Discovery Search Process Quality Standards? I want to thank Ralph for letting me post my thoughts on eDiscovery standards, more specifically as it relates to search and retrieval technologies.

The Right Question

In assessing Jason’s proposal/discussion of whether it is time for eDiscovery search process quality standards, I find myself thinking that there isn’t just one right question to ask when it comes to search and retrieval processes or search methods. Unfortunately, there is no easy button here – there isn’t one magic way to search data and get “the” answer. In his guest post, Jason suggests that these two are:

[t]he right questions: how does one go about designing an optimal process that produces a quality result. And are there ways to regularize or standardize that process so as to “certify” the result in a way that is defensible?

The issue with these two questions as the “right” questions to ask is that the search process could be perfect and your implementation of that search process could be perfect, but if, in your implementation of the “perfect search process” you chose an ineffective search method for that data type and content, the perfect process won’t matter. Your search results will stink and you won’t get the relevant information you need or want. The search process is too highly variable to standardize. One of the best things we can do to help the eDiscovery industry move from the “Wild Wild West” is to concentrate on the fundamental reason why you are using search in the first place.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Sonya Sigler

Cloud's Next Benefit: Helping Companies Grow

If an IT leader works for a company that isn't named Amazon, Google or Facebook, chances are it hasn't gotten a big revenue boost from the cloud. It's much more likely that the company has used the cloud to cut costs, replace a standalone software application or back up older documents.

Research by Accenture, however, shows that 40 percent of all businesspeople with a knowledge of cloud computing believe it will support their product or service innovation in the next five years. If they're right, the cloud will move from its current position, of providing operational benefit, to a new position of strategic value.

Cloud as a platform for new services

Many early initiatives have involved using the cloud as a delivery mechanism for something they already sell to consumers. Take the paid apps that the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine have developed for the iPad. Those organizations had terrific digital news products in the pre-iPad era, but are banking on highly touted iPad versions to bring in new revenue.

Likewise, Best Buy and Netflix have started streaming movies and television shows over the cloud in addition to selling or renting DVDs. Consumers loved the immediate delivery model, and Netflix's revenue in 2010 surged 29 percent, to $2.16 billion (more than tripling the value of its stock).


Now, new cloud services are targeting business customers. Fujitsu has launched an initiative to let local governments in Japan put digital images of worn-out bridges in the cloud, where construction companies can study the images (and other data) and provide the government with assessments. This is a cost-savings to the government, and a potential source of new revenue to Fujitsu. This system may get quite a test in the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in that country.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: baselinemag.com
By:
Jeanne G. Harris and Allan E. Alter

Big Data runs afoul of big lawyers

Big Data can be harnessed for a lot less than you think -- just don't get anyone with expensive lawyers angry

If you've read anything about the phenomenon of Big Data, then you probably picture armies of servers chugging some form of the Hadoop ecosystem to crunch mountains of information streaming from internal corporate transactions, emails, instant messages, and Web logs or external social media interactions and public information.

Sounds expensive, right? Not necessarily. Thanks to cloud computing, freely available tools, and limitless free data, you can do major league Big Data analysis for a C-note.

At a GigaOm conference on Big Data last week, Pete Warden, who claims he lives on ramen noodles, described how he spent just $100 to scrape 500 million Web pages, including 220 million Facebook public profiles, using his own Web crawler and a 100-machine cluster running on Amazon EC2. He was able to analyze the information to match Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook accounts with the email accounts of users of his email tool.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: infoworld.com
By: Leon Erlanger

Sunday, March 27, 2011

“Conscious Indifference” to Legal Hold Duty Equals “Bad Faith” Finding and Terminating Sanctions in Phillips Case

In many ways sanctions cases are the lifeblood of the electronic discovery industry. While the FRCP, Sedona Conference and EDRM are all out there as shining examples of what to do, it seems like more practitioners learn from the scared straight cases like Zubulake, Morgan Stanley, Pension Committee, etc. Well, if you liked those horror stories, Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. BC Tech., may certainly keep you up at night.

In this intellectual property (IP) case with copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and associated claims, the court entered a number of discovery orders compelling both production and preservation. The court found that, despite these orders, a proper litigation hold was not issued until 19 months after the duty to preserve arose and thousands of files were deliberately deleted from five key players’ computers. Not surprisingly, the plaintiff moved for a finding of contempt and for terminating sanctions.

In this decision, Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba goes the extra mile in his initial opinion (which was upheld on appeal) to detail the defendant’s significant errors. While it doesn’t quite rise to the maliciousness demonstrated in Victor Stanley 2 (by the “gang that couldn’t spoliate straight”), it still provides a textbook example of “worst” practices.

To begin, Magistrate Alba cites Pension Committee for the general notion that “[c]ourts cannot and do not expect that any party can meet a standard of perfection. Nonetheless, the courts have a right to expect that litigants and counsel will take the necessary steps to ensure that relevant records are preserved when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that such records are collected, reviewed, and produced to the opposing party.” Despite the early recognition that the electronic discovery process need not be perfect, he then uses most of the 48 page opinion to detail the parade of horrors committed by the defendant:

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: e-Discovery 2.0

By: Dean Gonsowski

Friday, March 25, 2011

E-Discovery Holds Strategies for Criminal Defense

Clarifying the government's obligations for the preservation and production of ESI
Over the past decade, judicial guidance has proliferated regarding electronic discovery obligations for civil litigants. What has been less clear is whether the same obligations and standards apply to government agencies in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Recent decisions indicate that, despite the narrower scope of pretrial criminal discovery, the government may well be held to the same high standards of preservation and production of electronically stored information. This emerging trend has strategic implications for the criminal defense bar when requesting discovery from, and defending against claims brought by, government agencies.

OBLIGATIONS TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS

A recent sanctions decision in a prominent criminal trial may portend a heightened approach to government document preservation obligations in criminal cases.

United States v. Suarez[FOOTNOTE 1] involved a wide-reaching criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution of bribery and corruption charges. During the trial of Anthony Suarez (the mayor of Ridgefield, N.J.) and a co-defendant, the court considered whether text messages exchanged between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and its informant, Solomon Dwek, should have been preserved and produced.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com

By: Norman C. Simon, Brendan M. Schulman, and Samantha V. Ettari

Survey Shows Government Agencies Getting More Adept at Electronic Discovery

Government agencies are handling more complex electronic litigation discovery requests and are gaining in their ability to manage them, according to a study released this week.

Commissioned by IE Discovery Inc., the 2010 Benchmarking Study of Electronic Discovery Practices for Government Agencies Survey revealed that while budget constraints are rising for agencies, 61 percent of government employees claim to be “more confident” in their ability to manage e-discovery.

Forty-six government attorneys, paralegals and information technology personnel from 24 government agencies took part in the survey.

Conducted annually, the survey also revealed a reduced reliance on paper, more work being done in-house and an overall higher volume of data to manage.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: govtech.com

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Now That Everything Is Collected, What Manner and Form to Produce It?

All electronically stored information responsive to discovery demands has been hunted down. Now what?

Under Rules 202.12(c)(3) and 202.70(g) (Rule 8) of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Courts, counsel were to have discussed issues concerning ESI before and/or at the preliminary conference, and to have agreed upon, among other things, "the scope, extent and form of production" and "disclosure of the programs and manner in which the data is maintained."[FOOTNOTE 1] However, in cases where counsel have not agreed on ESI issues, courts are compelled to fill the void, and the decisions are often not what was expected by the parties and counsel.

As recently as 2009, a New York state court decision noted that "to date," the law with regard to electronic discovery had not focused on the "manner" by which ESI is produced,[FOOTNOTE 2] and federal courts have taken the lead.[FOOTNOTE 3]

As Judge Shira Scheindlin stated in her recent decision in National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, "if no agreement is reached [among counsel], the court must determine the appropriate form of production, taking into account the principles of proportionality and considering both the needs of the requesting party and the burden imposed on the producing party."[FOOTNOTE 4] While the above statement was made in the context of a request for ESI under the federal Freedom of Information Act, this principle aptly applies to civil litigation in state courts as well.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com

By: Mark A. Berman, Anne D. Taback and Aaron E. Zerykier

Cloud computing hinders foreign data collection: AFP

The AFP has admitted technological advancements present a challenge in obtaining data from foreign jurisdictions

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has identified rapidly developing technology as a key source of frustration, with the advent of Cloud computing making it more difficult to obtain data from foreign jurisdictions.

Appearing at a joint parliamentary select committee on cyber safety, AFP manager of investigations at the High Tech Crime Operations unit, Grant Edwards, said police were in a constant struggle to keep pace with the use of "high technology" in crime.

In particular, the intricacies of Cloud-based computing and the storing of data in foreign jurisdictions made it difficult to obtain data for later analysis.

“That’s something the government along with the AFP are working very robustly on trying to address," he said. “It comes down to speed and access to gain that information in an expeditious matter or quarantine it in an expeditious matter and then use it in an evidentiary process… They’re the key elements in making our job easier.”

Brad Marden, a detective superintendent of the crime unit, also identified Cloud computing as a key source of struggle in speaking to attendees of the Australian Computer Society Discover IT 2011 conference in Canberra.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: computerworld.com.au

By: Chloe Herrick

'Pension Committee' -- One Year Later

The extent of the duty to preserve documents, and the penalties imposed for failure to do so, are issues that have commanded significant attention in recent years from litigants, counsel, and the courts. Despite widespread interest in achieving greater clarity and predictability, judicial efforts to set bright-line rules that inflexibly impose harsh penalties have met resistance from judges and parties who seek a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to enforcing preservation obligations.

The limits of per se rules in this controversial arena are seen in the lack of support received by a 2010 decision by a leading judicial expert on e-discovery in Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Decided by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York, author of the seminal Zubulake opinions and one of the most well-respected jurists in the country on e-discovery matters, the February 2010 decision is subtitled "Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later."

The ruling sets forth several bright lines governing the duty to preserve and, more specifically, when the failure to take specific preservation steps can give rise to sanctions. One of the more controversial aspects of the Pension Committee case is its holding that the failure to issue a written legal hold constitutes per se gross negligence, a ruling that touched off a debate in the e-discovery community not just about the necessity of written legal holds but the application of any per se rules to e-discovery.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com

By: William K. Dodds, Philip N. Yannella and Ben Barnett

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

E-Discovery And The Rise of Predictive Coding

Predictive coding is the electronic coding, organization, and prioritization of entire sets of electronically stored information (“ESI”) according to their relation to discovery responsiveness, privilege, and designated issues before and during the legal discovery process. Lawyers control this process by specifying relevant criteria. Computers then expedite discovery, as discussed in greater detail below. As I have written elsewhere, the discovery process is becoming increasingly automated, scientific, and objective in nature, a fact that applies both to e-Discovery with the government (e.g., Department of Justice) and with other civil litigants. According to Robert Trenchard, a Partner in the New York office of Wilmer Hale, and Craig Carpenter, Vice President and General Counsel of Recommind, an end-to-end e-Discovery and predictive coding solution provider, predictive coding’s myriad benefits inure to those early adopters with a risk comfort level that embraces the relative uncertainly posed by the process vis-Ć -vis an attorney’s obligations to conduct a reasonable inquiry under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and also to ensure attorney-client privilege in the event of inadvertent disclosure of privileged information under Federal Rule of Evidence 502.

From Towers of Bankers’ Boxes to Predictive Coding: A Brief History of Document Review

During the 15 months (1994-95) I spent as a legal assistant before law school, I remember well passing conference rooms with hundreds of bankers’ boxes, even more organized binders, tens of thousand of documents, privilege logs that became tomes, and dozens of contract attorneys. Who was to say at the time that the process was inefficient? It’s simply the way things were in the age of WordPerfect. After an interim phase best characterized by simple keyword searches and optical character recognition, e-Discovery has evolved to predictive coding. Why has this happened? Today’s realities are far different from what they were 15 years ago. Parties now have Terabytes of ESI. Document review is driven by substance and relevance-centric searches that leverage technology so as to require only a fraction of previous data collection.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.forbes.com

By: Ben Kerschberg

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Agent's Spoliation Results in Serious Sanctions

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, No. 05 C 4088, 2011 WL 722467 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2011)

In this case, the court ordered default judgment, ordered plaintiff to pay $1,000,000 in monetary sanctions, and ordered counsel to pay “the costs and attorneys fees incurred in litigating this motion” where plaintiff’s agent modified metadata related to relevant source code and wiped several relevant disks and devices prior to their production and where the court found counsel participated in “presenting misleading, false information, materially altered evidence and willful non-compliance with the Court’s orders.”

After plaintiff filed for summary judgment its retained consultant admitted in deposition that he had modified relevant source code prior to its production. Upon defendant’s motion for sanctions, the court declined to order default judgment but imposed monetary sanctions, struck the consultant’s declaration in support of summary judgment, and struck plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Thereafter further spoliation was revealed. Specifically, the consultant admitted to “turning back the clock” to change the “last modified” date on the previously modified source code to make it appear that the modifications had occurred much earlier and to wiping 6 of 7 disks produced for inspection (while the seventh disk was also wiped, it remained unclear who was responsible). It was also discovered that “various disks, USB drives and computers that RCG finally produced had been ‘wiped’” prior to production and that the hard drive produced in the “test machine” had been manufactured in 2008 (much later than would be expected in light of relevant time frames). Accordingly, defendant moved for additional sanctions.

In its defense, “RCG [did] not dispute any of the new allegations of misconduct” but instead sought to distance itself from “its own agent, employed for the purposes of pursuing this litigation” and disavowed any “actual knowledge” of wrongdoing. RCG’s counsel similarly disavowed “any personal wrongdoing and any actual knowledge of any wrongdoing, while unequivocally distancing themselves and RCG from [the consultant].”

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: ediscoverylaw.com

Recent Decisions Help Clarify Government's Preservation and Production Obligations

Over the past decade, judicial guidance has proliferated regarding electronic discovery obligations for civil litigants. What has been less clear is whether the same obligations and standards apply to government agencies in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Recent decisions indicate that, despite the narrower scope of pretrial criminal discovery, the government may well be held to the same high standards of preservation and production of electronically stored information (ESI). This emerging trend has strategic implications for the criminal defense bar when requesting discovery from, and defending against claims brought by, government agencies.

OBLIGATIONS TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS

A recent sanctions decision in a prominent criminal trial may portend a heightened approach to government document preservation obligations in criminal cases.

To Continue Reading:
Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source:
Law Technology News
By: Norman C. Simon, Brendan M. Schulman and Samantha V. Ettari

Cloud Computing: Ethical Shades of Gray

Lawyers have been communicating with their clients through the clouds for years. Firm websites, e-mails, and blogs effortlessly and instantaneously connect lawyers to their clients via computers, smart phones and now, tablets. The Internet, propelled by ever-changing and evolving technology, offers borderless accessibility. The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon is "cloud computing." Also known as "software as a service" or SaaS, cloud computing is a form of remote electronic data storage on the Internet. Data stored "in the cloud" are maintained by vendors and stored on large servers that may be located anywhere in the world. Typically, the vendor purchases and maintains its hardware and software, and firms pay a monthly fee to the vendor for its services.

While this form of outsourcing is touted as fostering firm efficiency and cost-saving, the elusiveness of this new type of data storage has raised eyebrows in the legal community as to its ethical propriety. In particular, potential concerns regarding confidentiality, security, and control surround cloud computing.

Spearheading an effort to identify specific practical concerns surrounding cloud computing and ways to develop necessary guidelines, the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Ethics 20/20 Working Group on the Implications of New Technologies, published an Issues Paper Concerning Client Confidentiality and Lawyers' Use of Technology on Sept. 20, 2010. The issues paper highlighted a number of concerns regarding a lawyer's use of cloud computing, including unauthorized access to confidential client information; storage of information on servers in countries with fewer legal protections; vendor failure to adequately back up data; unclear policies regarding data ownership; policies for notifying customers of security breaches; insufficient data encryption; the necessity for client consent; and policies for data destruction.

To Continue Reading:
Click Here
------------------------------------------
Source:
Legal Technology News
By: Devika Kewalramani

How Social Media Infiltrates the Practice of Law

Understanding how to harness social media in the practice of law is a hot topic. From marketing your law practice and trying a case in the media to discovery and jury instructions, social media has infiltrated the way we practice law. It is no longer something that can be ignored or all-out blocked.

There are many firms that prohibit access to social media sites at work. Some actually block entrƩe, while others simply discourage it. Many claim that social media sites are time-wasters. But social media is not just a productivity issue.

"That's really the language that masks the larger generational issue," said Kim Huggins, the author of "GENerate Performance." According to Huggins, there are four generations of legal practitioners in the workplace: Traditionalists (born before 1946), Baby Boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1980) and Generation Y (1981-2000). Of them, a large majority of the managing partners and judicial decisionmakers fall into the Traditionalist and Baby Boomer categories.

Then there's the group into which I fall: Generation X. I went to law school before e-mail or cell phones were mainstream. In fact, my first cell phone was the kind that came in a bag the size of a small suitcase and plugged into the car adapter.

While the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers continue to believe that social media is a fad, Generation Y'ers and other early adopters are changing the world virally. If you don't believe me, just Google (verb) "Wael Ghonim," Google's (noun) head of marketing for the Middle East and North Africa. He's the one who organized the Egyptian revolution in February, forcing the country's 30-year-long dictator, Hosni Mubarak, to step down

To Continue Reading:
Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source:
Legal Intelligencer
By: Gina Rubel

Monday, March 21, 2011

Another “Fox Guarding the Hen House” Case Shows the Dangers of Self-Collection

U.S. District Court Judge T. John Ward of patent law fame has recently issued an opinion on e-discovery sanctions. Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20353 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011). It is an important one to know about. The defendant relied solely on its own employees to find and produce relevant emails, a practice called self-collection. To make matters worse, they put a manager in charge of this effort who fancied himself “about as computer literate—illiterate as they get.” Id. at pg. 12. There are many dangers inherent in self-collection, including good faith omission by inadvertence, laziness, or lack of technical or legal training. But the chief danger is bad faith omission by fraud, by the natural desire of a witness to protect him or herself by not producing incriminating emails. This is the fox guarding the hen house scenario that represents the greatest danger of self-collection.

Many try to mitigate these risks by following a two-fold collection system, one that adds an extra level of protection to self-collection. This is appropriate in cases that are large enough to warrant the additional expenses involved. In such dual protection systems the key custodians still search, identify, and self-collect what they think are relevant emails, but, as a fail safe, IT also collects all of the key custodians’ emails. Then attorneys search and identify relevant documents from this full, uncensored, unfiltered, collection. This double effort guards against the intentional and unintentional mistakes that can sometimes arise in self-collection.

The defense attorneys in Green did not use this double check procedure, even though this was a wrongful death case. They over delegated to the client, much like the lawyers in In re A & M Florida Properties II, LLC, 2010 WL 1418861 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010). The client in Green, as in A&M Florida, totally botched the effort. In fact, the court in Green was convinced that key emails were overlooked on purpose. Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc, supra at pg. 10.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey

The Lawyer’s great debate: e-disclosure

One of the biggest issues in litigation management at the moment is e-disclosure.

From Goodale v Ministry of Justice (2009), where Senior Master Whitaker of the Queen’s Bench ordered the defendants to complete a draft e-disclosure ­questionnaire as part of the disclosure process, to the draft Practice Direction 31B on e-disclosure to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, which came into force on 1 October 2010, the topic is beginning to dominate ­litigators’ thoughts.

Last week The Lawyer brought together an ­eminent panel for a town hall debate on the subject. Besides Whitaker, they ­comprised Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer litigation partner Geoff Nicholas, Phil Beckett of Navigant, 39 Essex Street’s Jonathan Bellamy and head of litigation
at Lloyds TSB Aamir Khan.

Slaughter and May ­senior partner Chris Saul chaired the debate in front of a rapt audience of some 70 lawyers, both private ­practice and in-house, who had many questions for the panel. Here is a flavour of the hour-long debate.

How do parties overcome capacity issues in terms of the retention of electronically stored information?

Nicholas: “The costs ­associated with hosting those documents means it’s important to get a level of agreement about whatneeds to be retained. There’s a tension here [as regards] trying to reduce the scope of the initial ­disclosure, but parties are being more ­conscious of sourcing documents later in the litigation.”

Beckett: “Ten years ago we’d print everything out and end up with four lever-arch files. Now if we were to do that the volume of paper would be equivalent to two or three times the height of the Empire State Building. So costs are driven by the volumes of data.”

Is a computer more reliable than a human in deciding whether a document is ­relevant or not?

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: The Lawyer

By: Catrin Griffiths

Social media compliance rules lacking, Gartner says

Too many organisations do not have comprehensive compliance policies in place for its use, according to Gartner.

By the end of 2013, said the analyst house, half of all companies will have been asked to produce material from social media websites for e-discovery needs, so enterprises need an overall governance strategy for all applications and information used on social media platforms.

"Social media content is like all other content that is created by companies and individuals and is subject to the same rules, laws and customs," said Gartner analyst Debra Logan.

"Policymakers need to keep policies simple when it comes to what should and should not be done online. A good rule of thumb is that whatever the company code of conduct is for in-person encounters, and whatever the rules are for general good behaviour and common sense, those rules should apply in the online world as well," Logan said.

Logan said the legal landscape around social media "remains a patchwork", due to overlapping, conflicting and contradictory laws and regulations, and procedural rules propagated by national and international legislative and regulatory bodies. "Since there is no guarantee of absolute safety, the safest option is to have a consistent policy and apply it consistently," said Logan.

Gartner does not expect there to be any clear guidance from courts or regulators in the near future on social media compliance rules.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: csoonline.com
By: Antony Savvas

Google Apps needs support from C level executives

Tips on implementing enterprise change

Joe Fuller, CIO at Dominion Enterprises, had a mess to clean up. Built through a series of 150 acquisitions, the marketing services company was burdened by inefficiencies, disparities and siloed data. As the economy continued to tank in 2010, the company started to feel the weight of hosting email in 24 separate locations, which posed a multitude of support and integration issues, Fuller says.
In June 2010, Fuller bought an Android phone, which he says was his first foray into cloud. "Being able to access everything via a browser and posting email in the cloud made me think that this could be the way to go [at Dominion]."

Because the majority of employees were using Microsoft Outlook, Fuller and his team examined cloud options from Microsoft as well as Google. After visiting both vendors' headquarters, he determined that the Google Apps suite was a better fit from a product and price standpoint.

"The ease of accessing all the different aspects of the collaboration suite from one Gmail interface and the simplicity of the pricing model are what stood out," Fuller says.

While a migration to Google Apps was a relatively easy sell for him and many of Dominion's employees, 65 percent of whom were already familiar with Gmail, other executives at the company were not as readily convinced.

"Moving to the cloud was a kind of change that was boiling up from the rank and file employees," Fuller says. "The C-level was harder, privacy and security were their biggest concerns. Outlook had become comfortable for them, and they were hesitant about making the change."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: computerworlduk.com
By: Kristin Burnham

Search Terms Are More Than Mere Words

The use of search terms to separate irrelevant or unresponsive data from relevant or responsive information is commonplace. It is also common for parties to decide voluntarily to exchange search terms to increase transparency, ensure that documents are not excluded and limit the cost of discovery.[FOOTNOTE 1]

However, what should not become commonplace (and, sadly, is starting to) is the forced disclosure of search terms by courts. Not only are search terms not within the bounds of discovery, but they are windows into how counsel are considering and evaluating their case.

The obvious question is, other than the hyper-technical e-discovery practitioner, who cares about whether courts mandate the production of search terms? The answer lies in the nature of search terms themselves; they have become so common that we have forgotten what they are.

The answer: Search terms are not simply a random list of words that people think may be found in documents that are more likely important than other words. As courts have recognized, at their best, search terms are developed by counsel working with the client and interviewing "key players" to determine what is important and how people discussed it.[FOOTNOTE 2]

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: David J. Kessler, Robert D. Owen, and Emily Johnston

Friday, March 18, 2011

Social Media And The Corporate Governance Professional

The recent collapse of autocratic regimes in Egypt and Tunisia – with the possibility of more to come – came about at least in part because of the ‘social media revolution’. The protests, which began in late January, did not kick off with guns or a flurry of terror, but with tweets, texts and videos that were made possible by the popular social networking sites Facebook and Twitter.

According to reports, more than a third of the Arab world uses social media. In Egypt, what began as an anti-Mubarak Facebook page started by a Google engineer ended up igniting a powderkeg of rage among the country’s youth, and this eventually snowballed into a major protest in Tahrir Square.

As the protests intensified, Egypt temporarily cut off all access to the internet, thus stripping the country of its online presence and curtailing the protesters’ ability to communicate with each other and the outside world.

‘If this kind of thing can take down the government in Egypt, it can take down your company,’ says Doug Chia, assistant general counsel and corporate secretary of Johnson & Johnson. ‘You really need to be careful about what you put out there because, chances are, you won’t be able to take it back.’

Concerns like these are what made Eric Jackson, founder of corporate governance-focused investment company Ironfire Capital, initially apprehensive about using social media to get his message across. Instead, he took a back seat and quietly continued to monitor the networking sites. But as time passed and news stories about chief executives stepping down and companies operating under poor leadership started burning up the internet, Jackson decided it was time to make his voice heard.

He started blogging in late 2006. What he thought was a small post about the resignation of Yahoo!’s former CEO garnered a huge positive response. Now Jackson has more than 3,000 followers on Twitter, and he rarely lets an hour go by without updating his status.

‘Today there’s more action and communication going on, and we need to be more engaged,’ Jackson observes. ‘It’s all about staying on top of what’s happening and knowing what to say – and when to say it.’

Despite the fact that both large and small in-house legal departments have been reluctant to engage in internet dialogue, new media have created avenues for governance professionals to flourish as thought leaders and entrepreneurs throughout the industry.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: businessinsider.com
By: Aarti Maharaj

Leaked Government Documents Reveal Weakening of U.K. Bribery Act

Leaked government documents suggest that the U.K. Ministry of Justice has taken measures to radically weaken the jurisdictional reach of the country's new bribery act, which could in turn reduce the work generated by the proposed law for U.S. white-collar lawyers when it takes effect.

A draft copy of the new guidance, first obtained by The Guardian, reveals that international companies with London Stock Exchange listings but no other presence in the United Kingdom will be exempt from prosecution under the act.

"The government would not expect, for example, the fact that the company's securities have been admitted ... to trading on the London stock exchange, in itself to qualify that the company is carrying on a business in the U.K. ... for the purposes of [the act]," the guidance says.

Previously, such companies would have been subject to what has been described as the world's most draconian anti-corruption law, carrying unlimited fines and an increased maximum jail term of 10 years.

"If the reports of what is contained in the final guidance are indeed correct, then it is surprising that the MoJ has been willing to stray from the narrow confines of what it is obliged to provide under Section 9 of the Bribery Act into offering apparent blanket exemptions," says former Serious Fraud Office (SFO) anti-corruption head Robert Amaee, who joined Covington & Burling's London white-collar team in January. "It is by no means certain that there is a sound legal basis or that it is indeed desirable from a policy perspective to say that any non-U.K. registered company trading on the London Stock Exchange but not otherwise operating in the U.K. is, as a matter of course, exempt from the ambit of the term 'carries on a business, or part of a business, in … the U.K.'; a term which after all was left undefined by Parliament."

A spokesperson for the MoJ said: "We cannot comment on draft guidance which is yet to be made public. A common sense approach would mean that organisations which do not have a demonstrable business presence in the U.K. would not satisfy this test. The mere fact that a company is listed for London Stock Exchange purposes may not, in itself, be enough to amount to carrying on a business or part of a business in the U.K. However, it will always be for the courts to decide in individual cases whether a foreign company carries on a business or part of a business in the U.K."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com

By: Chris Johnson

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Cloud computing contracts and services: What's really happening?

Insight from the Cloud Legal Project

There is no shortage of hype about cloud services, both positive and negative, but it is often difficult for potential customers to do an objective cost / benefit analysis. In addition to promising productivity and business process benefits, cloud computing can be very attractive to cut rapidly both capital and operating expenditure.

There may, however, be unanticipated costs and risks in a move to online hosting of key data and applications. Perhaps surprisingly, and despite widespread concerns regarding security and privacy, there is little comparative information available regarding cloud contract terms and conditions and the associated legal risks of entrusting data to cloud providers.

A recent analysis of 31 cloud computing contracts from 27 different providers has at last shed light on industry practices and highlighted key issues for both suppliers and customers.

The survey formed part of the Cloud Legal Project at the Centre for Commercial Law
Studies, Queen Mary, University of London. Funded by a grant from Microsoft, but academically independent, this ongoing project is examining a range of legal and regulatory issues associated with cloud computing.

Most cloud contracts, whether for infrastructure, platform or software as a service, can be set up in minutes via an online sign-up process. Compare this to a conventional IT outsourcing, which is typically negotiated and subject to commercial and legal scrutiny.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: blogs.computerworlduk.com

By: Christopher Millard

Social networks must "comply with EU rules"

The EU's Viviane Reding has called for better data privacy protection, saying US-based sites must follow European laws.

The EU is working on reforming its data protection rules, with Reding saying she plans to present legislative proposals on the subject this summer.

Any new EU laws must be obeyed by all companies operating in Europe, regardless of where the site was hosted or the data was held, she said.

"For example, a US-based social network company that has millions of active users in Europe needs to comply with EU rules," said Reding, the vice president of the European Commission, in a speech.

In order to keep large multinational companies in line, Reding called for member countries to toughen up their protective agencies.

"To enforce the EU law, national privacy watchdogs shall be endowed with powers to investigate and engage in legal proceedings against non-EU data controllers whose services target EU consumers," she said.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: pcpro.co.uk

By: Nicole Kobie

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

In Search of Quality: Is It Time for E-Discovery Search Process Quality Standards?

“Quality…you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! … Obviously some things are better than others … but what’s the “betterness”? … So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?”

- Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Ralph Losey has once again graciously given over his column to me – and so this week I wish to use this platform to share a few personal, informal thoughts on the “hardness” of the problem of e-discovery search. I also wish to shamelessly “hawk” the June 6, 2011, DESI IV workshop in Pittsburgh — intended to be a high-level exploration of what should or could be future e-discovery standards governing the search for electronic evidence. Even if you choose to skip reading the rest of this blog, please note: all devotees of Ralph’s column are warmly welcomed to submit papers to DESI IV.

Robert Pirsig spent a good deal of time on his motorcycle in the 1970s contemplating the metaphysics of quality. In my own way, I’ve been on a similar quixotic mission for at least the past eight years — in search of “quality” in the e-discovery search space. This particular quest for the Holy Grail has involved seeking out the perfect search where one finds “just” highly relevant documents in response to a FRCP 34 document request, or, as a matter of early case assessment, “just” the hot documents one needs to win the case. I’ve searched the world over for answers, and along the way decided that I had been asking the wrong question.

At one time, I thought I knew what the problem was, and what the information retrieval “task” should be to overcome the problem. The problem, I thought, was simply the naĆÆve use of keywords. Or at least, the way lawyers naively think about keywords when going about the task of searching for electronic evidence. I think many lawyers still practice with the assumption that using simple keywords, without more, to find responsive ESI is sufficient to get them through the day in dealing with their e-discovery obligations. While this remains a problem, it is not in my view the problem. And the task is not simply to try to “beat Boolean” with other search methods.

When I started thinking about this back in the Dark Ages (no, not those Dark Ages, I mean before the 2006 Rules changes), I was convinced that there “must” be a better method out there that reliably beat the kind of keyword and Boolean searches that lawyers used. My views were formed after being tasked to search through a “mere” 20 million presidential emails from the Clinton era in search of “tobacco”-related documents of relevance in US v. Philip Morris (still-active litigation pending in federal district court in D.C. on remand from the Supreme Court). After dreaming up an arbitrary set of keywords, and running a search that initially produced 200,000 hits but ultimately yielded 100,000 relevant documents after a six month document review exercise conducted by 25 archivists and lawyers, I understood that the profession was facing a crisis point. Simply put, the exponentially increasing volume of information would soon render impossible the task of manually sifting though 1% of unimaginably large volumes of electronically stored information (ESI). Not just costly, resource-intensive and woefully inefficient, but simply impossible, given real-world constraints.


To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Jason R. Baron (Guest Post)

Social media can open up office minefield

More workers are tapping into blogs, Twitter and Facebook, and gaffes can create trouble on the job

Attendees at social media seminars often ask how to keep business and personal separate in social media. The older they are, the more likely that question comes up.

It's generational angst on the death of privacy. They seem unaware that privacy is virtually dead already.

The only privacy filter you can trust is the one in your head. If you don't want something on the Web, on the news or spread around the office, don't say or share it.

No amount of reassurance will convince me Facebook or any other social network has the privacy settings right. As a result, I assume everything I say and do on the Internet is on the public record. This collision of the private and public is causing some consternation in the workplace.

The International Bar Association (ibamedialaw.wordpress.com) recently blogged: "Experts have stated that 'the intersection of social media and the office is a potential minefield,' creating numerous possibilities for a wide variety of lawsuits. A manager 'poking' an employee on Facebook might give rise to a sexual harassment claim. Or perhaps an employer may rescind a job offer to an employee after learning via Facebook that the applicant is of a particular religion or sexual orientation."

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: montrealgazette.com
By: Doug Lacombe

EU Clarifies Proposed Data-Privacy Rules .

The European Commission Wednesday spelled out some of its proposed privacy rights for citizens sharing personal data on the Internet, saying there should be a strict "right to be forgotten" that would allow users to tell websites to permanently delete data.

In a speech in Brussels, Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said the first pillar of the European Union's proposition would be "a comprehensive set of existing and new rules to better cope with privacy risks online."

"When modernizing the legislation, I want to explicitly clarify that people shall have the right—and not only the 'possibility'—to withdraw their consent to data processing," Ms. Reding said.

She said the "burden of proof" should be on data controllers who process data. "They must prove that they need to keep the data rather than individuals having to prove that collecting their data is not necessary," she added.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: online.wsj.com
By: Laurence Norman

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Mobile Devices Fair Game for Police Searches in California

Jan. 3 was the first business day of the new year. Longtime Chief Justice Ronald George had just retired. Jerry Brown was returning to the office he had left behind some 28 years earlier, succeeding perhaps the single biggest celebrity to hold an elected executive branch office since Ronald Reagan. All but one of the state's newly elected constitutional officials were busy being sworn in.

With the attention of virtually all media directed toward the change of power in Sacramento -- the Democrats took over not just the governor's office, but every major constitutional office in state government -- a divided California Supreme Court quietly issued a major decision that constituted a major defeat for notions of personal privacy amidst the proliferation of personal electronic devices, People v. Diaz, 11 C.D.O.S. 107.

The story began nearly four years earlier when, on an April afternoon in 2007, one Gregory Diaz purportedly drove a drug dealer to the scene of a drug transaction; the dealer, in the back of Diaz's car, engaged in the sale of Ecstasy to an informant as a Ventura County deputy sheriff listened in over electronic surveillance equipment. Upon completion of the controlled buy, the alleged drug dealer was arrested, as was Diaz as a co-conspirator.

Nothing thus far was anything but ordinary in the day-to-day enforcement of the laws proscribing the possession or distribution of controlled substances.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Jeffrey Hayden

‘It is a service, not a technology’

Chief executives and finance directors are understandably cautious when the IT industry waxes enthusiastic about the next “breakthrough”.

What are they to make of cloud computing, the latest big technology idea to come to mainstream business attention?

Simply put, cloud computing is the use of off-site servers, routers and databases that are not “owned” by the business, to handle all, or large parts, of a company’s computing needs.

Instead of managing requirements in-house, with all the costs and hassle involved, a company will outsource operations such as e-mails, enterprise resource planning and data storage.

Factories used to generate their own power on-site, but now routinely buy in electricity and gas.

Cloud enthusiasts believe that, in future, companies will buy computer capacity in the same way.

Executives may be unfamiliar with the cloud but many will have been using it for years without realising it.

E-mail providers such as Google, social networking sites including Facebook, and Flickr, an online photo and video-sharing service, are all run from global data centres, many of which are owned by companies such as Amazon and Microsoft.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: ft.com
By: Charles Batchelor

Monday, March 14, 2011

Wikileaks Twitter Accounts Cleared for DOJ Access by Judge

A federal judge granted the U.S. government permission to access information on the Twitter accounts of three WikiLeaks supporters today.

The Department of Justice subpoenaed Twitter in Dec. 2010, demanding access to Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Rop Gonggrijp, and Jacob Appelbaum’s accounts, as well as information regarding WikiLeaks’s Twitter accounts. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys representing the WikiLeaks backers argued that the government’s attaining such information by mandate violated the first and fourth amendments. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan disagreed in a 20-page opinion, saying the government’s investigation superseded the individuals’ rights to privacy.

“The freedom of association does not shield members from cooperating with legitimate government investigations,” Buchanan wrote.

The prosecutors sought the information as part of an ongoing probe of WikiLeaks, though the DOJ has not specified why this particular material was needed.

The U.S. Government initiated the investigation to see whether WikiLeaks-founder Julian Assange and fellow members of the whistle-blowing site broke U.S. laws when exposing massive troves of classified U.S. documents. The Twitter information could be helpful to that end if it shows that the organization actively solicited the material rather than merely posting it after it was made available to them independently.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: signalnews.com
By: Chilton Tippin

Storage maps the future of digital data

THE one consistent theme in the digital world is that growth is a constant. It is estimated that from 2009 to 2020, the size of the digital universe will have increased 44 fold; that is a 41 per cent increase in capacity every year. Storing, locating and extracting value from high volumes of data will become increasingly complex.

As the digitally-enabled business world evolves, the mix of data and its anticipated usages are going to change as well. Already, there is an increased diversity of data types with 80 per cent of today's data being unstructured and the reuse of data is shrinking, with 80 per cent of data never being used after 90 days. However, regulation and compliancy dictates that data is adequately archived for a long period of time, sometimes up to triple digits in number of years.

The way the fallout from data storage is currently handled is massive -- the impact on the environment is one of these factors. Storage already consumes 40 per cent of datacentre power and it is predicted that within 10 years the total energy consumed by storage solutions could increase to more than six times what it is today. Based on these predictions, storage could represent over 75 per cent of the energy consumed within the datacentre and if you consider that 80 per cent of data is never looked at again after three months, storage is a major IT trigger for energy burn-out.

Another fallout is cost and the added expense of managing growing volumes of data. The business critical nature of data is driving up storage management costs by 25 per cent per year, so in the long term it will become the number one cost within many datacentres. Therefore, it's becoming increasingly more important to align the value of data with the capabilities and cost of the storage it is stored on.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: financialexpress-bd.com

By: Ahsen Javed

The automated office

The days of lawyers drowning in paper are over. Over the past decade technology innovations have moved at warp speed, transforming the practice of law forever.

When Kathryn Manning began practising law in 1998 as a litigator, she used to receive boxes of documents from clients. Files had to be manually scanned for privilege and relevance.

“Now, we get discs,” says Manning, an associate in the litigation group at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto.

Thanks to technology, her work in e-discovery has changed.

She uses Summation, a litigation software product, to organize client documents, transcripts from oral examinations and pleadings when preparing for a trial. Another e-discovery tool, called Clearwell, is used to cull — within minutes, if not seconds — information, such as email, for relevance and to avoid duplication, and bulk-tag information that is needed rather than requiring her to conduct a linear review of every message or file. Another software tool for e-discovery — called Relativity — enables litigators to search documents by concept.

“You’re not using your legal skills when you’re looking at things that are repetitive or irrelevant. You become a lawyer to analyze and think analytically,” says Manning, who is also responsible for knowledge management initiatives and e-discovery developments within her litigation group at Blakes. As such, she keeps an eye on trends and, to that end, attended the recent LegalTech trade show in New York City. That three-day event drew thousands of technology vendors and lawyers, including Canadian e-discovery and litigation management expert Susan Wortzman.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: lawyersweekly.ca

By: Christopher Guly

Legal Intelligencer / The end of associates? Not so fast

When The New York Times reported earlier this month on the growing use of software programs that could sift through mountains of electronically stored information turned over as a part of pretrial litigation, it reported breathlessly that the tool could put out of work a veritable army of young associates.

After all, software doesn't bill at rates in excess of $100 per hour, and, moreover, as one lawyer told the Times, computers don't get bored or get headaches -- two very common occurrences when poring over thousands of e-mails, most of which will prove irrelevant to the crux of the case.

Paul Krugman, the newspaper's economic columnist, cited the story in arguing that even high-status professions like the law can be vulnerable to redundancy as a result of technology.

Mr. Krugman's point is, of course, correct. But the trend is not so new. Experienced paralegals, who do not have law degrees, have been vetting documents at the front end of discovery for decades now. And, in the era of globalization, vetting documents is the kind of job that can be outsourced.

Technology stories tend to be treated in two ways by the media -- some innovations are overhyped, but some incrementally become part of the landscape of our lives in ways that almost avoid notice.

One of the major transformations in the practice of law is how discovery has increasingly been conducted over the last 10 to 15 years. As business record-keeping has migrated from paper to hard drives, more and more information is electronically stored.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: post-gazaette.com
By: The Legal Intelligencer

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Government Appeals and Seeks a Stay of Judge Scheindlin’s FOIA Order on Metadata in NDLON v. ICE

Linked here is the Legal Memorandum filed on February 21, 2011, by the defendants in NDLON v. ICE. The United States claims that it will be irreparably damaged if required to follow Judge Scheindlin’s prior order of February 7, 2011. See New Opinion by Judge Scheindlin on FOIA, Metadata and Cooperation. This opinion required the production of standard metadata fields. The government has also filed a notice of appeal of Judge Scheindlin’s order.

An interlocatory appeal to the Circuit Court on a discovery issue is always a long shot. Appeals courts usually do not accept appeals of non-final discovery orders. The appellant has to show irrepairable harm. Still, this is an unusual case as production of documents goes to the merits of the case itself.

The argument in the government’s linked memorandum is focused on why Judge Scheindlin should stay her own order pending the outcome of the appeal. Alternatively, the government defendants asks for a stay pending the Second Circuit’s ruling on a motion for stay.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: e-discoveryteam.com
By: Ralph Losey

Friday, March 11, 2011

Court Rules Debt Agency Can't Contact Woman on Facebook

A Florida judge has ordered a debt collection agency to not use Facebook or any other social media site in an attempt to locate a woman over a $362 unpaid car loan.

Judge W. Douglas Baird of the Florida 6th Judicial Circuit Court also ordered Mark One Financial LLC of Jacksonville, Fla., to refrain from contacting the woman's family or friends on Facebook.

The order is part of a lawsuit that Melanie Beacham filed last August against the debt collection agency. According to court documents, Beacham said Mark One sent messages to her and her family on the Facebook networking site to have her call the agency about the debt.

Billy Howard, the woman's attorney with the Morgan and Morgan law firm in Tampa, said the debt collectors violated Beacham's privacy. He said they also violated a provision of Florida's consumer protection law that prohibits debt collectors from harassing people.

Howard said that in the past four months, nearly a dozen potential clients have contacted him because debt collectors have used social media sites to track them down.

"It's the beginning of an epidemic," Howard said, calling it "another weapon" debt collectors can use.

Beacham's claims Mark One contacted her six to 10 times a day by phone, sent her a text message, contacted her neighbor. and sent a courier to deliver a letter to her workplace, according to court documents.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
-------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Tamara Lush