Cable Network Image

The Issue That Currently Concerns eDiscovery Professionals The Most: Increasing Volumes of Data (Spring 2019)

eDiscovery Professionals Concerned with Increasing Volumes of Data

The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific quarterly survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The survey consists of nine core multiple choice questions focused on factors related to the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services. Additionally, the survey contains three optional questions focused on the business operational metrics of days sales outstanding (DSO), monthly recurring revenue (MRR), and revenue distribution across customer bases.

Initiated in January 2016, to date the survey has been administered fourteen times with 1,448 individual responses. The survey is open to legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem and individuals are invited to participate primarily via direct email invitations.

The latest survey was administered in the spring of 2019 and had 180 respondents in roles that included executive leadership (24.4%), operational management (36.1%), and tactical execution (39.4%).

One of the questions in the quarterly survey asks participants to select from a listing of six issues the issue they view as potentially having the most impact on their eDiscovery business during the next six months. The issues presented include:

  • Budgetary Constraints
  • Increasing Types of Data
  • Data Security
  • Increasing Volumes of Data
  • Lack of Personnel
  • Inadequate Technology

While not all-inclusive, the listing of issues provides a realistic overview of potential areas that appear to have a direct and ongoing impact on the business of eDiscovery.

Based on the aggregate results of past surveys, the following findings and charted overviews of responses to the question of issues impacting business may be helpful in understanding the collective mindset of many industry experts regarding these issues and their impact over time on the business of eDiscovery.

Seven Key Findings in the Spring of 2019

  • In the spring of 2019, 25% of respondents viewed increasing volumes of data as potentially having the greatest business impact on their business in the next six months. This percentage is the highest of all concerns represented in the survey. (Chart 1)
  • Decreasing slightly as a concern since last quarter, budgetary constraints continue to be one of the top concerns for eDiscovery professionals with 20.6% of survey respondents noting it as their top challenge in the spring of 2019. This challenge has been ranked as the top concern amongst presented issue choices in seven of the fourteen quarters of the survey. (Chart 2)
  • The percentage of respondents viewing the impact of increasing types of data as a top business issue increased slightly in the last quarter and is now viewed as the top concern by 18.9% of spring 2019 survey respondents. (Chart 3)
  • The percentage of respondents viewing the impact of data security as a top business issue increased 3% in the last quarter and is now viewed as the top concern by 15% of survey respondents. (Chart 4)
  • Increasing data volumes continue to be a great concern for eDiscovery professionals with 25% of spring survey respondents viewing data volume challenges as potentially having a substantial impact on business in the next six months. This is the third quarter in a row this concern has increased, and it continues to represent a critical concern for survey participants. This quarter is also the sixth time in fourteen surveys that increasing data volumes has been rated as the top quarterly concern amongst presented issues. (Chart 5)
  • The impact of a lack of personnel on eDiscovery business performance increased slightly during the last quarter and is the top concern for 12.2% of survey respondents. (Chart 6)
  • In the spring of 2019, the impact of inadequate technology as the top business issue decreased 5% in the last quarter and is now viewed as the top concern by 8.3% of survey respondents. (Chart 7)

Considering Fourteen Quarters of Results from 2016 to 2019

From a top issue perspective, the following potential issues and the number of quarterly times they have been considered the top concern by survey respondents is shared to create context as to the cyclical concerns of eDiscovery professionals.

  • Budgetary Constraints: The top concern seven times in fourteen quarters (3x Winter*, 2x Spring, 1x Summer, 1x Fall).
  • Increasing Volumes of Data: The top concern six times in fourteen quarters (2x Winter*, 2x Spring, 1x Summer, 1x Fall).
  • Data Security: Never ranked as the top concern.
  • Increasing Types of Data: The top concern two times in fourteen quarters (1x Summer, 1x Fall).
  • Lack of Personnel: Never ranked as the top concern.
  • Inadequate Technology: Never ranked as the top concern.

* Top concern tie between Budgetary Constraints and Increasing Volumes of Data in the Winter of 2017.

Survey Charts

Chart 1: An Aggregate Overview of Issues Impacting eDiscovery Business Performance

Issues Impacting eDiscovery Business Performance (3) Chart

Chart 2: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Budgetary Constraints as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Budgetary Constraints on eDiscovery Business Chart

Chart 3: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Increasing Types of Data as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Increasing Types of Data on eDiscovery Business Chart

Chart 4: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Data Security as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Data Security on eDiscovery Business Chart

Chart 5: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Increasing Volumes of Data as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Increasing Volumes of Data on eDiscovery Business Chart

Chart 6: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Lack of Personnel as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Lack of Personnel on eDiscovery Business Chart

Chart 7: An Overview of the Percentage of Respondents Viewing Inadequate Technology as the Top Issue Impacting eDiscovery Business

Impact of Inadequate Technology on eDiscovery Business Chart

Running Listing of Survey Results

Chart 8: Survey Participant Overview

Survey Respondents (Individual and Aggregate Overview) Chart

Source: ComplexDiscovery

ACEDS Community Newsletter for the Week of April 25

BitsBytes.png

April 25, 2019 | VOL. 8 | NO. 16

TAR Talk Podcast Hosts Special Guest the Honorable Andrew Peck (ret.)
Listen here

Rob Robinson, ComplexDiscovery: Is Business Blooming? eDiscovery Business
Confidence Survey Results – Spring 2019
Read more

Sean O’Shea, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP: Tips for Paralegals and
Litigation Support Professionals – April 2019
Read more

Part 2: Is There an App for This? Reviewing and Producing Mobile Data
by George Socha, Martha Louks, and Joe Sremack
Read more

Martin Nikel, Deloitte: What You Can Tell Without Even Reading the Mueller
Report
Read more

Duff Johnson, PDF Association: A Technical and Cultural Assessment of the
Mueller Report PDF
Read more

Alaina Lancaster: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte to Retire After 21 Years
on the Federal Bench
Read more

George Socha, BDO: Weekly Trend Report – 4/24/2019 Insights
Read more

Relativity Shares Twitter Moment of the #Tokyo Summit
Read more

Tokyo Summit: Groundbreaking Diversity in Asia Panel Includes Sitting Japanese
Jurist; Kaylee Walstad, CEDS, Honored as Global Conference Ambassador
Read more

Tokyo2

ACEDS Affiliate News

ESI Analyst and Sandline Discovery Announce Channel Partnership
Read more

Corey Tomlinson, Nuix: Panama Papers Revisited May 22
Read more

Logikcull: Mueller Report Made Searchable
Read more

Tim Rollins, Exterro: Just How Common Are E-Discovery Mistakes?
Read more

Everlaw: How Personal Data and Privacy Laws Collide with
“Trustworthiness” Scores
Read more

H5’s Economou and IEEE’s Lach: Four Principles for the Trustworthy
Adoption of AI in Legal Systems
Read 
more

Relativity Stellar Women in e-Discovery: Jariya Laoriendee [Podcast]
Read more

Jamie Wilson, NICE/Nexidia: Merseyside Police: Leading the Way in Digital
Evidence Management
Read more

EDiscoveryVoice_email

ACEDS Chapter News and Events

We are excited to announce new ACEDS Chapters are being formed in Gulf Coast
(LA, MS, AL), Charleston, South Africa, Toronto, Tokyo, Ireland, Kansas City,
Seattle, Dallas, Ohio, Atlanta, Sydney and Melbourne Australia. Please reach out to
chapters@aceds.org if you are interested in being part of the formation, steering
committee, or a member.

May 9 – Los Angeles – Lunch and Learn
Learn more and register here

May 15 – Philadelphia – Success Stories: Using Analytics to Streamline Data
Learn more and register here

May 17 – South Florida – Ethics & eDiscovery – Ethics & Technology Practice
Learn more and register here

May 21 – Twin Cities – Data Collection: An In-House Perspective
Learn more and register here

May 23 – Ireland – Rooftop Networking Event
Learn more and register here

May 29 – Dallas – Your Apple Watch is Ruining My Life: An eDiscovery Survival
Guide
Learn more and register here

August 7 – New England – Sunset Cruise *Save the Date*
Learn more and register here

advertisement

Ricoh

Tokyo Panel

Tokyo Summit: Groundbreaking Diversity in Asia Panel Includes Sitting Japanese Jurist; Kaylee Walstad, CEDS, Honored as Global Conference Ambassador

April 25, 2019.  EAGAN, Minn.  More than 200 cross-functional, high-level panelists and participants gathered during The Tokyo Global Summit, a global legal and technical conference held at the Tokyo American Club in Tokyo, April 18, 2019.  Panelists traveled from Brazil, Spain, Finland, Australia, and the U.S. to share-up-to-the-minute technical, legislative, regulatory, litigation, compliance, and diversity and inclusion challenges during this educational and networking event hosted by the CJK Group and LLM Law Review.

ACEDS Executive Director, Mary Mack, CEDS, CISSP, moderated the groundbreaking panel, Diversity and Inclusion in Asia: Optimizing Teams for Success. The panel included:

  • The Honorable Shusaku Tatara, Judge in the Chiba District Court of Japan, shared his experience of returning to the bench as an openly gay judge
  • Natsue Ishida, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Vice President, Legal & Compliance of UD Trucks Corporation, spoke about initiatives to increase women in STEM and the experience of returnees, who come back to Japan after extended time abroad
  • Jean-Denis Marx, Partner at Baker & McKenzie, spoke about the differences in response to LGBTQ+, and gender and the structural impediments to increasing diversity
  • Christopher Clay, Director, Legal Division of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., spoke of the fierce global competition for talent and the existential threat facing Japanese companies that do not adopt a culture of inclusion

“This was a stellar group of panelists, each of whom fully grasps the importance of diversity and inclusion for continued growth and success in our industry,” Mack said. “It was a very impactful session as the personal became professional for the group.”

ACEDS Vice President, Client Engagement, Kaylee Walstad, CEDS, was honored as conference Global Ambassador for her work promoting the conference and its participants to colleagues and other stakeholders across the community.

“I was overwhelmed to receive the award,” Walstad said. “Promoting and increasing the awareness of the event was a privilege as I believe it is an incredibly important and timely forum for the legal and technology field.”

Other speakers at the networking and education event included Dr. Kenzo Fujisue, Japanese parliament; Jason Hsu, the Taiwanese Crypto Congressman; and a conversation-enhancing combination of General Counsels, CEOs, and professionals in forensics, privacy, eDiscovery, and more.  ACEDS affiliates OpenText + Catalyst, Thomson Reuters and Relativity were among the conference sponsors and speakers.

“The Tokyo Summit fulfills my vision of a world-class educational forum where experts meet, collaborate and engage on cutting-edge topics in critical issues related to cybersecurity, data privacy, informational governance and electronic discovery,” said Jonathan Rossi Hiroshi, Tokyo Summit Founder and CEO. “This is just the beginning of something very special. Stay tuned for some big announcements!”

Highlights of the event can be accessed via Twitter at @kayleewalstad.

About ACEDS
The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), part of leading legal education provider The BARBRI Group, is a global membership association committed to promoting and verifying eDiscovery skills and competence for organizations and individuals through training, certification, and supported by ACEDS chapters around the world. The association’s goal is to help professionals and organizations reduce the costs and risks associated with eDiscovery, and realize the advantages of performing it effectively. ACEDS awards the Certified E-Discovery Specialist (CEDS) credential, and the eDEx, the eDiscovery Executive Certificate, held by practitioners at AmLaw 200 firms, government agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and United Nations and some of the largest global corporations in the world.

About CJK Global
CJK Global is a multi-platform enterprise providing professional services and business-to-business content. Our professional services group deploys expert bilingual teams during the discovery stage of litigation, investigation and transaction based due diligence. The content unit offers exclusively tailored educational summits, in-person interviews & journals.

www.CJKGlobal.com

About LLM Law Review
LLM Law Review is the media and content division of CJK Global. We publish regulatory reports and commentary on technology developments as they relate to big data challenges, cybersecurity, data privacy and other issues that arise in the age of new technologies.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Cindy Parks
913.526.6912
cindy@parkscommunications.com

Typewriter Image

Weekly Trends Report – 4/24/2019 Insights

Insight into where e-discovery, information governance cybersecurity, and digital transformation are heading – who is doing what now or in the future, what works and what doesn’t, and what people wish they could do but can’t – gleaned from recent publications

EDRM Annual Workshop – The Duke/EDRM workshop and forum is an annual gathering of highly motivated judges, practitioners, consultants, service providers, and software vendors who collaborate on exciting and challenging ediscovery and other IT projects that impact the industry and the profession. Join us in an intimate environment on Duke Law School’s campus, develop and broaden professional relations, and avail yourself of ample opportunities to talk directly to federal judicial and bar leaders.

E-DISCOVERY

A production primer – Tom O’Connor has put together a four-part primer on the production of ESI:

Rule 37(e)(2) sanctions – Casey Sullivan of Logikcull looks at how courts have treated the FRCP Rule 37(e)(2) intent requirement – increasingly by not finding the intent needed to impose sanctions under the rule.

On redacting Word files natively – In Mueller? Mueller? More E-Discovery Lessons from Bill and Bob, Craig Ball argues that native redaction of Word files is no pipe dream and demonstrates why.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Data disposition commentary – The Sedona Conference has published The Sedona Conference Commentary on Defensible Disposition. The starting point for this 54-page commentary is Principle 6 of The Sedona Commentary on Information Governance: “The effective, timely, and consistent disposal of physical and electronic information that no longer needs to be retained should be a core component of any Information Governance program.” It sets forth three principles, each with comments. The three defensible deletion principles are:

  1. Absent a legal retention or preservation obligation, organizations may dispose of their information.
  2. When designing and implementing an information disposition program, organizations should identify and manage the risks of over-retention.
  3. Disposition should be based on Information Governance policies that reflect and harmonize with an organization’s information, technological capabilities, and objectives.

CYBERSECURITY & DATA PRIVACY

North Carolina data breach amendments – On April 16, amendments to the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act were introduced. Highlights, discussed by Karin McGinnis of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, include the expansion of the scope of information covered by the law and the expansion of obligations imposed by the law of businesses and consumer reporting agencies.

Limiting CCPA – This week California lawmakers advanced eight bills aimed at limiting the California Consumer Privacy Act, according to Legaltech News reporter Cheryl Miller.

CCPA guidance – BCLP has begun posting a series of FAQs examining the California Consumer Privacy Act. Posted so far:

  • Post 1: Does CCPA apply to employee data?
  • Post 2: What is “personal information” under the CCPA?
  • Post 3: As used in the CCPA, do the terms “personal data,” and “personal information” mean the same thing?
  • Post 4: What information is not “Personal Information” under the CCPA?

E-DISCOVERY CASE LAW

Recent e-discovery decisions

2/14/2019 – In a patent infringement lawsuit, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore granted plaintiff’s request that defendant produce emails of a United Kingdom citizen who previously had directed plaintiff’s U.K. sales. Defendant had asserted that it could not produce those messages without violating GDPR privacy requirements. In reaching the decision to order production of the email, the Court considered five factors: (1) the importance of the requested documents to the litigation; (2) the degree of specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the U.S.; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance would undermine important interests of the U.S. The Court found that each factor favored disclosure: (1) the requested documents are directly relevant; (2) the search terms were limited and targeted; (3) although the individual is located in the U.K., more importantly the defendant is an American company; (4) it i not clear that domestic custodians would have the same information; and (5) there is a strong American interest in protecting American patents, while the U.K. interest in protecting its citizen’s privacy can largely be addressed via the protective order in place. Finally, the Court find that the burden on the defendant did not weigh against disclosure. Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST (KAW), 2019 WL 618554 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019).

2/4/2019 – U.S. Magistrate Judge Lanny King granted defendants’ motion to compel production of social networking site content, limiting the scope to plaintiff’s Facebook and other social media accounts from a six-month period regarding physical activities and mental status, and set forth a process for the parties to follow. To arrive at this results, the Court looked to the FRCP 26(b)(1) relevance standard and in the particularity and proportionality requirements of FRCP 34(a-b). Locke v. Swift Transportation Co., 2019 WL 430930 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 4, 2019).

UPCOMING EVENTS

Conferences, webinars, and the like can provide insight into where e-discovery, information governance cybersecurity, and digital transformation are heading

4/25/2018-5/17/2019 EVENTS

Start End TZ Type Location Host Title
4/25/19 7:30 AM 4/25/19 6:30 PM IST Conference New Delhi, India Events 4 Sure Global Legal ConfEx & Law Tech Exhibition
4/25/19 Conference New York, NY CGOC CGOC 2019 Regional Meeting New York City
4/25/19 Meeting Austin, TX ARMA Austin ARMA April Chapter Meeting
4/25/19 Meeting Jacksonville, FL ARMA Jacksonville Zoo & Gardens – Lunch & Learn
4/25/19 1:00 PM 4/25/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Optimize Your eDiscovery Spend with Business Intelligence
4/25/19 1:00 PM 4/25/19 3:00 PM ET Webinar ALI-CLE The Ethical Implications of Electronically Stored Information
4/25/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar Everlaw Expose Hidden Gaps in Data Sets
with Data Visualization on Everlaw
4/25/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Data Governance – Combining Data Management with Organizational Change
4/26/19 8:00 AM 4/26/19 6:30 PM ET Conference New York, NY ABA Fifth Blockchain, Digital Currency and ICO National Institute
4/26/19 8:00 AM CT Conference Chicago, IL ABA 13th Annual National Institute on E-Discovery
4/28/19 1:30 PM 4/30/19 4:30 PM CT Conference Minneapolis, MN ACC Xchange
4/29/19 6:00 PM 5/31/19 4:00 PM MT Conference Scottsdale, AZ Ipro Ipro Tech Show
4/30/19 8:00 AM 5/3/19 6:30 PM ET Conference Washington, DC IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2019
4/30/19 10:00 AM ET Webinar Cellebrite Getting Ready for the Future of Digital Investigations: From Evidence to Intelligence
4/30/19 9:00 AM 4/30/19 4:00 PM PT Conference San Francisco, CA Exterro Exterro Regional User Group San Francisco
4/30/19 1:00 PM 4/30/19 1:30 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Social Media Discovery™: Find the Smoking Gun
4/30/19 1:00 PM 4/30/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar Lexbe Planning and managing large document review for the boutique firm
4/30/19 3:45 PM 4/30/19 6:00 PM ET Meeting Pittsburgh, PA ACC Project Management and the Use of Artificial Intelligence
5/1/19 8:30 AM 5/1/19 4:00 PM ET Conference Washington, DC IAPP Content Moderation in 2019
5/1/19 10:00 AM 5/3/19 7:00 PM ET Conference New York, NY ABA 2019 Section of Litigation & Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division CLE Conference
5/1/19 12:00 PM 5/1/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar EDRM Law Day Webinar – A Practical Guide to Information Governance
5/2/19 Conference Milwaukee, WI ARMA ARMA Milwaukee Spring Seminar – Information Overload!
5/2/19 Meeting Albuquerque, NM ARMA Data Breach Preventions, Detection & Response
5/2/19 8:30 AM 5/3/19 1:00 PM ET Conference Charlotte, NC The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 Midyear Meeting 2019
5/2/19 10:00 AM ET Webinar ayfie Practical overview: Legal tech trends
5/2/19 9:00 AM 5/2/19 4:00 PM CT Conference Houston, TX Exterro Exterro Regional User Group Houston
5/2/09 1:30 PM 5/2/19 6:00 PM ET Conference Washington, DC ABA Law + Innovation: Guardians vs. Disruptors
5/3/19 Meeting Raleigh/Durham/Cary/RTP, NC ARMA ARMA Triangle Chapter Meeting
5/3/19 Meeting Uncasville, CT ARMA Roll the Dice with Data!
5/6/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar ABA Data Knows No Bounds: Managing Cross-Border Cyber Incidents
5/7/19 12:20 PM BST Webinar LexisNexis Webinars Evidence and disclosure in 2019
5/7/19 8:00 AM 5/7/19 11:30 AM CT Conference BDO
McDermott
Privacy & Cybersecurity Risk Management Series: Insights on Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
5/7/19 1:00 PM 5/7/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar CCBJ Data Privacy Implications of Cloud-Based Social Collaboration Apps
5/8/19 11:30 AM 5/8/19 12:15 PM ET Webinar Concept Searching Crossing the Content Chaos Chasm – Where Does Records Management Fit?
5/8/19 1:00 PM 5/8/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Doing More With Less: How Walmart and Veolia Are Revolutionizing Corporate Discovery
5/8/19 Meeting Tacoma, WA ARMA Office 365 Records Retention – ARMA Puget Sound Chapter Program
5/8/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar Opentext Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Preserving Ephemeral Evidence in E-Discovery
5/8/19 5:00 PM 5/10/19 1:00 PM ET Conference Austin, TX Women in eDiscovery Women in eDiscovery National Conference
5/9/19 Meeting Madison, WI ARMA Digital Lifecycle Management Workshop
5/9/19 12:00 PM 5/9/19 1:30 PM ET Meeting New York, NY Women in eDiscovery New York City – Save the date
5/9/19 1:00 PM 5/9/10 2:00 PM ET Webinar MER Making the ERP Sausage: A Case Study of RIM Inclusion During System Transition
5/9/19 1:00 PM 5/9/19 2:30 PM ET Webinar Strafford Obtaining and Admitting Cell Phone Evidence at Trial: Call Logs, Text Messages, and Location Data
5/9/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Data Curation for Artificial Intelligence Strategies
5/14/19 Meeting Tampa, FL ARMA Florida Gulf Coast ARMA Monthly Meeting
5/14/19 7:30 AM 5/16/19 12:00 PM PT Conference Las Vegas, NV CLOC CLOC 2019 Las Vegas
5/14/19 9:00 AM 5/14/19 4:00 PM CT Conference Chicago, IL Exterro Exterro Regional User Group Chicago
5/14/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Data Management Maturity – Achieving Best Practices using DMM
5/15/19 Meeting Lincoln, NE ARMA Developing Defensible Deletion Strategies
5/15/19 5:30 PM 5/15/19 8:30 PM CEST Meeting Brussels, Belgium The Sedona Conference WG6 Membership-Building Event: The Tension between Data Protection Compliance and Investigatory Demands
5/16/19 Meeting Portland, OR ARMA Oregon Chapter 50th Anniversary
5/16/19 Meeting Boston, MA ARMA ARMA Boston: Homerun Extravaganza
5/16/19 Meeting Oaks, PA ARMA Liberty Bell Chapter Meeting
5/16/19 8:00 AM 5/16/19 5:30 PM CT Conference Chicago, IL The Masters Conference Chicago Windy City Legal And Data Event
5/16/19 9:00 AM 5/16/19 4:00 PM ET Conference New York, NY Exterro Exterro Regional User Group New York
5/16/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Build an Effective Data Governance Framework
5/16/19 2:00 PM 5/16/19 4:30 PM CT Meeting Minneapolis, MN IAPP The Duty of Data Security and the Practicality of Managing it
Meeting Minneapolis, MN IAPP IAPP KnowledgeNet Happy Hour
5/17/19 8:00 AM 5/17/19 5:00 PM CT Conference Chicago, IL InfoGov World Data Monetization & Infonomics Summit

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Date Focus Organization Title
4/22/2019 ED

C/DP

AccessData AccessData Rolls Out New API That Supports Automation of Digital Investigations
4/23/2019 ED FTI Consulting FTI Consulting Expands Relativity Offering to India
4/23/2019 ED

C/DP

Sonasoft Sonasoft (SSFT) Wins Contracts Worth Over $100K with Major California School District

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

Date Focus Org By/About Title
4/17/2019 ED

C/DP

Morgan Lewis California Federal Court Rejects GDPR as a Means to Block Discovery

Tess Blair, Vincent Catanzaro

4/17/2019 ED Legaltech News Inevitable Expense? Corporate E-Discovery Spend Likely to Increase Next Year

Frank Ready

4/17/2019 ED

LT/DT

Corporate Counsel Legal Department 3.0: What Is Your Data Telling You?

David Carns (Casepoint)

4/17/2019 ED Litigation Edge Benefits of Reviewing Emails Using an eDiscovery Platform vs. Outlook

Serena Lim

4/17/2019 IG Legaltech News Sedona Conference Cautions Against Siloed Approach to Information Governance

Victoria Hudgins

4/18/2019 ED Relativity Stellar Women in e-Discovery: Jariya Laoriendee [Podcast]

Mary Rechtoris

4/19/2019 ED Exterro What Will the Artificial Intelligence Revolution Look Like in E-Discovery?

Tim Rollins

4/22/2019 C/DP Legaltech News ABA Formal Opinion 483: What Are a Lawyer’s Obligations After a Data Breach or Cyberattack?

David Bayne (Akerman)

4/22/2019 ED Driven Reducing ESI Preservation Obligations with Proportionality and Metrics

Philip Favro

4/23/2019 ED Exterro Just How Common Are E-Discovery Mistakes?

Tim Rollins

4/23/2019 ED Inventus Cloud Security and eDiscovery: Separating Myth, Fact, and Marketing Fluff

Sarah Brown

4/23/2019 ED Skadden How Social Media, Technology and Privacy Laws Are Changing the E-Discovery Landscape

Lauren Aguiar, Richard Bernardo, Gretchen Wolf, Giyoung Song, Eve-Christie Vermynck

4/23/2019 ED Sidley April’s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
4/23/2019 LT/DT Legaltech News In-House Innovation: Managed Service Providers Targeting Corporate Law

Victoria Hudgins

4/24/2019 ED Relativity Shifting the e-Discovery Paradigm from Documents to People

Ann Marie Lane

See Past Weekly Trend Reports

Image of cellular data

Part 2: Is There an App for This? Reviewing and Producing Mobile Data

In Part 1 of our series on mobile devices, we discussed preserving and collecting mobile device data. In this article, we turn to the types of information you can expect to encounter with mobile devices and key considerations for analyzing, reviewing and producing these types of data.

To start, you must acquire data from the mobile devices. As you begin this process, you also should start examining the data you are acquiring, in particular data about communications, custodian device activity, and device files. Once you have acquired data, you will want to determine which data to use and then export data so you can work with it more readily – reducing, analyzing, reviewing, producing, and presenting it as you would any other ESI. There are a limited but, fortunately, growing number of options for working with the exported data. They include using spreadsheet reports, loading data into review platforms and working with it there, and, to a limited extent, working with the data presented in a near-native format.

Mobile device data you can acquirecellebrite screenshot

Mobile device content can be acquired using a variety of tools such as Cellebrite, Oxygen Forensics, and BlackBag. U such tools, you have access to a broad array of types of information, as indicated in the Cellebrite screenshot in Figure 1. These can be grouped into three broad categories of commonly used information types – remembering that there are many other types available as well.

The first category of information types is communication data. This category includes chat messages, instant messages, SMS/MMS messages, call logs, and voicemails. It contains the most commonly reviewed and produced mobile device data.

The second category is custodian device activity. It comprises such information as calendar entries, device logs, web histories, user accounts, and contacts.

The last category is device files. These are files that are physically stored on the device, such as stored media files and downloaded attachments.

Determining which data to use

Determining which mobile device data you want to work with is an exercise you may have to go through anew for each matter and each device.

The wide range of data available from mobile devices requires that you carefully select which types you intend to consider. It also means you should be mindful about how you intend to analyze, review, produce, and present that content.

The nature of your matter might be such that you select only a subset of this information for review; location content, for example, might be the only data that you care about. If, however, you need to examine the full array of communications available from or through a mobile device, then you will need to be prepared to look at content from all applications on that device and develop a process for assessing each application’s data. Chances are, your needs will fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Exporting mobile device data for analysis and review

Having determined which mobile device data you want to focus on, you need to export that data to work with it further. Several common export formats are used for exporting mobile device data. The two most common formats are report-style spreadsheets and SQLite databases. Both provide virtually the same information. How they present the information, and what they let you do with it, differs.

Spreadsheet reports provide more immediate access to data from individual records, such as chat messages, call logs, and text messages. SQLite databases offer greater power but require knowledge of database structure and SQLite tools that enable the reviewer to query and review the data. Right now, report-style spreadsheets are in vogue, as many find them both easier to use and more flexible.

Analyzing and reviewing mobile device data

Once you have figured out which mobile data you want to review and analyze, the question quickly arises – how do you do this?

A variety of approaches can be used to review and produce mobile data. The workflows and solutions we describe here are general observations of current industry practices. The techniques you choose to employ in one case may not fit the needs of another, so you always should be ready to consult a technology professional about the best options for a particular matter if you find yourself in unfamiliar territory.

Some mobile device data review challenges

Mobile device data present challenges that are important to understand before you start digging into the data to analyze and review it.

Missing metadata. The first challenge is that of missing metadata. When records are deleted from a mobile device, significant parts of the metadata for those records will be gone. Similarly, there can be issues of missing metadata for mobile device applications that do not generate or retain standard metadata, such as record creation dates.

Encryption. Another major challenge is data for encrypted applications. Some applications encrypt messages and attachments, which can render the data inaccessible for most mobile device acquisition tools.

Identities. Another set of challenges arises from the nature of how mobile devices track the identities of people with whom the devices’ users communicate. When mobile device data is collected, some messages show a sender or recipient’s chat ID or phone number instead of the person’s name. Depending on the chat ID or the volume of different phone numbers, this lack of an obvious identifier makes it difficult to determine identities of communicating parties. Sometimes this can be corrected by matching address book entries to those communications, but even then an address book may contain partial or conflicting information. Large group chat message groups can compound this challenge, as multiple parties might have been communicating both with each other and across one another.

Using spreadsheet reports

A common approach to analyzing and reviewing mobile data is to work with a spreadsheet-based report generated from the device’s forensic image or from an extract of the device’s SQLite database (see Figure 2). Often the review of the spreadsheet report is performed by a single person. That person goes through the rows of information in the spreadsheet to determine which rows to produce. After production decisions have been made, a new copy of the spreadsheet is created. The new copy contains only those rows of information designed to be produced. That copy then is produced to the other party.

Although this approach is simple on its face, is has several disadvantages—especially in matters with multiple mobile devices. One problem is that those using this approach typically do not apply document control numbers to conversations and other data within the report. The lack of control numbers can lead to confusion among the parties about which communications they are referring to and can mean extra time spent confirming that everyone is referring to the same information. An additional problem is that using these spreadsheets means generally working outside of a centralized platform. That makes it more difficult to accomplish a host of tasks that are not just logistical but ultimately substantively impactful on the work performed, such as tracking decisions about the device data, sharing work product, and providing team members with access to both the device data and information about how that data was treated.

Using review platforms

An alternative approach is to reorganize the content of the reports so that it can be loaded into a review platform. This often means starting with individual spreadsheets, generating a review database record for each record reflected in each spreadsheet, assigning a control number to each record, recording parent-child relationships, and so on. It also means creating one or more load files (see Figure 3) so that content can be loaded to the review platform in a way that allows it to be useable. The load files, records, and any native files from the device then are loaded into the review platform. To facilitate the ability of the review team to work with the device data now available in the review platform, typically someone with appropriate expertise creates customized layouts and views for the device data and adds tags that can be used to track relevance, privilege and other decisions made about the content.

A challenge with this approach is that each piece of information from each report is treated as a separate document. This means every individual text or chat is represented as a separate document in the database. As a result, understanding context, determining which information to produce, and deciding how to produce it can become complicated.

A near-native approach

Recognizing the need for effective review of mobile data in centralized review platforms, several providers have been developing processes to format chat, SMS, and MMS data in a “near-native” format. Figure 4 shows an example from Relativity. The resulting document looks more like a standard chat conversation, allowing reviewers to read it more easily and better place it in context.

This emerging approach requires that thought be given to formatting issues. You will need to make decisions about what constitute appropriate “document breaks.” Should a full day of chats be defined as a single document, for example, or would another time period make sense? You also will need to consider the possibility that the resulting documents may not contain all necessary context to assess the information.

Additional challenges

Regardless how you format mobile device data for review, you likely will face other data management challenges, especially when you need to work with data from multiple devices.  Currently there is no consistently effective way of deduplicating mobile data, either within or across devices. Searching mobile data also can be more difficult because it is comprised of many different metadata fields that are not commonly present in e-discovery. You may need to build custom search indexes to ensure that your search is reasonably complete.

Production of mobile device data

Many of the questions surrounding review of mobile device data also apply to production. Producing mobile device data is unique because the data records themselves are not true native files. Mobile device data is a collection of metadata—and possibly attachments. While the attachments can be viewed natively, the mobile device data records are not native files. In order to produce them in a near-native format, you must convert the data into a new format, and as with review, several different options are available.

Currently, the two primary approaches for production are the same as in review: produce a spreadsheet with the metadata and any accompanying native file attachments or produce near-native format files with accompanying load files and native attachment files. The decision about which approach to use depends on the negotiations between both parties and relative costs for each method. Producing in spreadsheets is a cheaper and faster solution, but in matters involving numerous mobile devices, managing numerous spreadsheets can be unwieldly without the controls that can be put in place with a database-centered approach with near-native files.

Regardless of the production method that you choose, be mindful of several challenges for any production. A particularly notable challenge is redaction. If you are redacting parts of or entire messages, you need to make sure the message is truly redacted in both the metadata and near-native files. While there are innovative solutions for this in the market, no standard approach or set of best practices has been established. This means that any production guidelines should be carefully defined by both parties and that a thorough review of the production should be performed.

Conclusion

Options for getting mobile device data ready to analyze, review, produce, and ultimately present still are limited. Although tools and techniques continue to improve, at this stage a significant amount of manual and/or custom work often can be needed to get from that data the value you are seeking. As we gaze into out murky crystal balls, however, we see more than a little hope for the future of mobile device data review and production.

In our next post, we will go beyond review (at least in the traditional sense), to discuss strategies for managing non-communication mobile device data (e.g., web browser history or address books) and performing analytics of mobile device content.

Justice and Law concept image

Sean O’Shea: Tips for Paralegals and Litigation Support Professionals – April 2019

3/27/2019: Using InfraView to AutoSave Screen Grabs

InfranView allows you to auto save screen grabs in a number of different image formats.

3/28/2019: Active Learning in Relativity

An active learning project in Relativity will re-rank documents every 20 minutes; after 5 minutes if no coding decisions have been made; or after 200 documents have been reviewed.

3/29/2019: Bulk converting between image file formats

A free download allows you to bulk convert between the .bmp; .tiff; .jpg; .gif and.png formats.

3/30/2019: SAML 2.0 Authentication in Relativity

SAML 2.0 authentication eliminates the need for users to enter passwords.

3/31/2019: Script to find and replace strings in multiple text files

Import the re module to use regular expressions in Python.

4/1/2019: Hash value bit counts

Every hexadecimal is composed of 4 bits or half a byte. A MD5 hash value will have 32 alphanumeric characters or hexadecimals. 32 times 4 equals 128, so MD5 is a 128 bit value.

4/2/2019: Metadata Proves Timing of Search

Internal metadata for photos established that a search took place pursuant to a warrant.

4/3/2019: ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 on Billing Practices

“When that basis for billing the client has been agreed to, the economies associated with the result must inure to the benefit of the client, not give rise to an opportunity to bill a client phantom hours.”

4/4/2019: imagecacherviewer

A great, simple forensics tool that lets you quickly collect important digital evidence.

4/5/2019: Lookup the DPI of a PDF in Acrobat

Using print production in the Preflight tool of Adobe Acrobat you can analyze the resolution of a PDF file.

4/6/2019: Motion to Dimiss Granted to Dropbox in Patent Case

“So long as the underlying process claimed in the patent can be performed manually by a human, that is enough to find that a patent is directed toward an abstract idea.”  Orcinus Holdings, LLC v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc., No. 18-CV-06199-LHK, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58619, at * 43 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2019).

4/7/2019: Support Vector Machine Learning

Active learning in Relativity uses support vector machine learning. The appropriate hyperplane will maximize the distance from the two nearest points from a class of responsive documents and a class of non-responsive documents.  So in this example, H3 is the most appropriate hyperplane.

Hyperplane H3 Image

4/8/2019: N.D. Cal. Ruling on Motion to Transfer: Ease of Access to Evidence Still a Factor in the Age of ESI

Judge Tigar noted judicial precedent finding the transportation of documents not to be burdensome because of technological advances, but held that, “[w]hile this diminishes the weight of this factor in the transfer determination, ease of access to the evidence remains a factor to consider.”

4/9/2019: Use MFCMAPI to wrangle email data

The free MFCMAPI tool can be used to search for blocked attachments and to export email metadata.

4/10/2019: Regex Syntax

When setting up regex searches in repeated content filters in Relativity, be sure to use the Perl Regex syntax.  The Python, ViM, and POSIX syntax may not work.

4/11/2019: Active Directory Rights Management Services (AD RMS)

AD RMS can be used with Microsoft Exchange to prevent the recipient of an email from changing the content of an email, even though the email can be forwarded or replied to.   The original email gets added as an attachment to the reply email.

4/12/2019: 7th Circuit Order for Management of Privileged ESI

7th Circuit draft order for the management of privileged ESI recommends including as much objective metadata as possible on a privilege log.

4/13/2019: WinRAR Security Flaw

Don’t open compressed files in the ACE format with WinRAR.  A security flaw can lead to the loss of control of your PC to an outside attacker.

4/14/2019: Sedona Commentary on Information Governance

The commentary warns against a siloed approach to info gov – with different departments having their own policies or with policies for data privacy and electronic discovery that don’t take each other into consideration.

4/15/2019: C.D. Cal. Magistrate Judge Ruling on CEO Custodian’s Self-Collection

CEO custodian was allowed to self-collect, but must submit declaration regarding retention practices.

4/16/2019: Adding New Documents to Textual Near Duplicate Groups Can Create Anomalous Groups of One

In Relativity when an incremental analysis is run for a textual near dupe group, if a new doc matches an orphaned doc from the initial set and is larger, it will be in a group of one, and the doc from the initial set is not part of it.

4/17/2019: Searching Court Dockets on Bloomberg Law

The Bloomberg Law docket search tool is a unified docket search tool for American courts which incorporates the core functions of PacerPro and Lexis Courtlink.

4/18/2019: winmail.dat email attachment processing error

Emails with winmail.dat attachments may show the sender’s .pst file paths and login ID in the .dat file.  These are RTF Outlook emails another email client could not process.

4/19/2019: Relativity Repeated Content Identification – From the Bottom Up

Structured analytics will only search for repeated content from the bottom – no more than 200 tail lines can be reviewed.

4/20/2019:The Fastest Way to Review Email Threads in Relativity

In Relativity, you can review email messages more quickly in the email thread visualization than in the related items pane.

4/21/2019: Judge Grimm Encourages Use of Analytics Software for Privilege Review

Judge Grimm says that courts shouldn’t find waiver of privilege where parties use analytical tools and sampling correctly.

4/22/2019: Reviewing UTC codes in Instant Message Metadata

IM metadata will have two date/time fields – one for when a thread began and a second for when the current message was sent.  NYC & the Eastern USA shifts from UTC-5 to UTC-4 during daylight saving time.

4/23/2019: Creating an Optimized Analytics Index

Create an optimized analytics set in Relativity using a saved search with files of less than 30 MB.

Is Business Blooming? eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey Results – Spring 2019

The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey

The eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey is a non-scientific quarterly survey designed to provide insight into the business confidence level of individuals working in the eDiscovery ecosystem. The survey consists of nine core multiple choice questions focused on factors related to the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services. Additionally, the survey contains three optional questions focused on the business operational metrics of days sales outstanding (DSO), monthly recurring revenue (MRR), and revenue distribution across customer bases.

Initiated in January 2016, to date the survey has been administered fourteen times with 1,448 individual responses. The survey is open to legal, business, and information technology professionals operating in the eDiscovery ecosystem and individuals are invited to participate primarily via direct email invitations.

Spring 2019 Survey Results

The spring 2019 survey response period was initiated on April 1, 2019, and continued until registration of 180 responses (April 18, 2019). Thanks to the strong support of the leadership and marketing team at the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), this quarter’s survey experienced the highest number of responders since the inception of the survey in January of 2016.

While individual answers to the survey are confidential, the aggregate and unfiltered results are published to highlight the business confidence of participants regarding economic factors impacting the creation, delivery, and consumption of eDiscovery products and services during the spring of 2019.

Business Confidence Questions (Required)

n = 180 Respondents

  1. Which of the following segments best describes your business in eDiscovery?
    Part of the eDiscovery ecosystem where your organization resides.
    • Law Firm – 30.0% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Software and/or Services Provider – 29.4% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Corporation – 16.7% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Consultancy – 12.8% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Governmental Entity – 7.2% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Other – 3.9% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Media/Research Organization – 0% (No Change from Winter 2019)

  1. How would you rate the current general business conditions for eDiscovery in your segment?
    Subjective feeling of business performance when compared with business expectations.
    • Good – 41.1% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Normal – 52.2% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Bad – 6.7% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. How do you think the business conditions will be in your segment six months from now?
    Subjective feeling of business performance when compared with business expectations.
    • Better – 40.0% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Same – 57.8% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Worse – 2.2% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. How would you guess revenue in your segment of the eDiscovery ecosystem will be six months from now?
    Revenue is income generated from eDiscovery-related business activities.
    • Higher – 41.7% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Same – 52.2% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Lower – 6.1% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. How would you guess profits in your segment of the eDiscovery ecosystem will be six months from now?
    Profit is the amount of income remaining after accounting for all expenses, debts, additional revenue streams, and operating costs.
    • Higher – 34.4% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Same – 55.6% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Lower – 10.0% (Up from Winter 2019)

  1. Of the six items presented below, what is the issue that you feel will most impact the business of eDiscovery over the next six months?
    Challenges that may directly impact the business performance of your organization.
    • Increasing Volumes of Data – 25.0% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Budgetary Constraints – 20.6% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Increasing Types of Data – 18.9% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Data Security – 15.0% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Lack of Personnel – 12.2% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Inadequate Technology – 8.3% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. In which geographical region do you primarily conduct eDiscovery-related business?
    The location from which you are basing your business assessments.
    • North America (United States) – 91.1% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • North America (Canada) – 3.9% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Europe (UK) – 2.8% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Asia/Asia Pacific – 1.1% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Middle East/Africa – 1.1% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Europe (Non-UK) – 0.0% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Central/South America – 0.0% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. What are best describes your primary function in the conduct of your organization’s eDiscovery-related business?
    • Legal/Litigation Support – 78.3% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Business/Business Support (All Other Business Functions) – 13.9% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • IT/Product Development – 7.8% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. What are best describes your level of support in the conduct of your organization’s eDiscovery-related business?
    • Tactical Execution – 39.4% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Operational Management – 36.1% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Executive Leadership – 24.4% (Down from Winter 2019)

Business Metric Trajectory Questions (Optional)

  1. How would you characterize the trajectory of your organization’s Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) during the last quarter?
    n=159 Respondents
    • Increasing – 17.6% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Unfluctuating – 22.6% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Decreasing – 6.3% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Do Not Know – 53.5% (Up from Winter 2019)

  1. How would you characterize the trajectory of your organization’s Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) during the last quarter?
    n=158 Respondents
    • Increasing – 28.5% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Unfluctuating – 19.0% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Decreasing – 5.7% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Do Not Know – 46.8% (Down from Winter 2019)

  1. Which of the following statements best describes the distribution of your organization’s revenue across your customer base during the last quarter?
    n=158 Respondents
    • Increasing – 27.8% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Unfluctuating – 19.0% (Up from Winter 2019)
    • Decreasing – 6.3% (Down from Winter 2019)
    • Do Not Know – 46.8% (Up from Winter 2019)

Past Survey Results

Source: ComplexDiscovery

Typewriter Image

Weekly Trends Report – 4/17/2019 Insights

Insight into where e-discovery, information governance cybersecurity, and digital transformation are heading – who is doing what now or in the future, what works and what doesn’t, and what people wish they could do but can’t – gleaned from recent publications

See past Weekly Trend Reports

EDRM Annual Workshop – Join us for the Duke/EDRM Annual Workshop to be held May 15-17 at Duke Law School in Durham, NC. The annual Duke/EDRM workshop brings together highly motivated judges, practitioners, consultants, service providers, and software vendors to work collaboratively on exciting and challenging ediscovery projects that impact the industry and the profession.   Members attend to pending projects, provide their collective wisdom and guidance on challenges, problems, and issues encountered in ongoing projects, and propose and discuss new projects.

4/15/2019 post – Exterro and Duke/EDRM Judges Survey 2019 Series: Part 2, Taking Affirmative Action to Address E-Discovery Problems

E-DISCOVERY

It’s all about the story – Jury research consultant Drury Sherrod argues in a recent ABA Journal article, When it comes to jury trials, should you tell a story or stick to the facts?, that the answer should be obvious: go with the story. Although he does discuss where to find those facts, the answer should be obvious as well: in the enormous volume, depth, and breadth of ESI available through discovery.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Sedona IG commentary – The Sedona Conference has published The Sedona Conference Commentary on Information Governance, Second Edition. This is the final version of the document, published for comment on October 2018. Eighty-five pages long, it sets forth the 11 principles that comprise The Sedona Conference Principles of Information Governance and contains related commentary and appendices.

CYBERSECURITY & DATA PRIVACY

GDPR handbook – White & Case has published an on-line guide to the GDPR, Unlocking the EU General Data Protection Regulation: A practical handbook on the EU’s new data protection law. The handbook contains 19 chapters: Introduction; Complying with the GDPR; Subject matter and scope; Territorial application; Key definitions; Data Protection Principles; Lawful basis for processing; Consent; Rights of data subjects; Obligations of controllers; Obligations of processors; Impact Assessments, DPOs and Codes of Conduct; Cross-Border Data Transfers; Data Protection Authorities; Cooperation and consistency; Remedies and sanctions; Issues subject to national law; Relationships with other laws; and Glossary.

CCPA amendments –

  • On April 10, Senate Bill 561 was approved by the California Senate’s Judiciary Committee. The bill would expand the CCPA’s private right of action to any violation of a consumer’s CCPA rights, remove the existing 30-day cure period, and eliminate businesses’ right to consult the AG’s office regarding compliance, according to a Hogan Lovells update by Mark Brennan, Britanie Hall, and Julian Flamant.
  • On April 12, Assembly Bill 1760 was revised to remove a provision that would have expanded the CCPA’s private right of action to apply to any CCPA violation, according to the same Hogan Lovells update. Remaining in the bill are other changes such as requiring opt-in consent for businesses’ sharing of consumer data and expanding consumers’ right to delete data held by businesses.
  • Also on April 12, Assembly Bill 25 That bill would narrow the CCPA definition of “consumer”, the implications of which are discussed by Deborah George of Robinson+Cole.

Other data privacy action at the state level – Other states continue to push data privacy initiatives. These include:

New biometric proposals – Robyn Feldstein and Melinda McLellan of BakerHostetler write that the new biometric data laws have been introduced. They include:

LEGAL TECHNOLOGY & DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Tom Bruce, co-founder of Cornell Law School’s LII, retiring – In 1992 Tom Bruce and Peter Martin of Cornell Law School co-founded the Legal Information Institute, a truly ground-breaking initiative. Bob Ambrogi has more details in his End of an Era post.

Law firm AI roundtable – In the first installment of a two-part article, seven panelists discuss the directions they think laws firms will head with artificial intelligence, including adoption rates, the extent to which law firm leaders understand what firms can do with AI, and the impact made by implementing AI.

Legal tech not really designed for lawyers? – As reported by Legaltech News author Frank Ready, according to results of a recent survey by Intapp, although attorneys want legal technology that will help them in their practices they don’t feel what they get meets that need. In its press release, Intapp states that “46 percent of UK lawyers surveyed are using technology that does not meet their needs”.

E-DISCOVERY CASE LAW

Recent e-discovery decisions

3/27/2019 – U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon denied as untimely plaintiff’s motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of ESI.  More than two years elapsed between when plaintiff learning about the destruction of the ESI and the date when plaintiff brought her motion. To arrive at this conclusion, the Court looked at five timeliness factors and found plaintiff wanting. The five factors are: (1) how long after close of discovery the spoliation motion is made; (2) the temporal proximity between the spoliation motion and any motions for summary judgment; (3) whether spoliation motions are made on the eve of trial (a bad thing from the POV of those seeking sanctions); (4) whether there were any deadlines in the Rule 16 scheduling order governing filing of spoliation motions; and (5) the merit of the filing party’s explanations for why it did not file earlier. Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019).

UPCOMING EVENTS

Conferences, webinars, and the like can provide insight into where e-discovery, information governance cybersecurity, and digital transformation are heading

4/18/2018-5/10/2019 EVENTS

Start End TZ Type Location Host Title
4/18/19 4/18/19 Conference Tokyo, Japan ACEDS Tokyo Summit 2019
4/18/19 Meeting Winnipeg, Canada ARMA Understanding the Importance of Strategy in Implementing Information Governance (IG)
4/18/19 12:00 PM 4/18/19 1:00 PM CT Meeting MALSP April 2019 MALSP Meeting – Office365: eDiscovery, Compliance and Retention
4/18/19 1:00 PM 4/18/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar MER How Defensible Deletion Fits in Your Information Management Strategy
4/18/19 1:00 PM 4/18/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Advanced Legal Hold Tips: Taking Your Preservation to the Next Level
4/18/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY A Complete Set of Data Governance Roles & Responsibilities
4/18/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACC Futuristic Law Department Leaders: Transforming the way in-house teams engage outside counsel
4/23/19 4/24/19 Conference Houston, TX ARMA 2019 ARMA Houston Chapter Conference & Expo
4/23/19 8:00 AM 4/23/19 5:30 PM PT Conference San Francisco, CA The Masters Conference Bridge The Gap Between Legal And Data
4/23/19 12:30 PM 4/23/19 6:00 PM ET Conference Novi, MI Warner Norcross + Judd Data Solutions Symposium Spring 2019
4/23/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar ABA Ethics in Action: The War Law Firms Are Fighting Against Data Breaches
4/24/19 11:00 AM ET Webinar CloudNine Discovery Isn’t Just for Litigation Anymore
4/24/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar XDD Collection Fundamentals – Key Knowledge for Legal Practitioners
4/24/19 2:00 PM 4/24/19 2:45 PM ET Webinar AIIM Capture Leaders & Their Projects: We Asked, They Answered. Discover What This Means for You.
4/24/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ARMA ARMA & Access – “Rethinking & Modernizing Document Management”
4/24/19 3:00 PM ET Webinar EDT Gigs “Byte!” What are the Next Generation Pricing Models for eDiscovery?
4/25/19 7:30 AM 4/25/19 6:30 PM IST Conference New Delhi, India Events 4 Sure Global Legal ConfEx & Law Tech Exhibition
4/25/19 Conference New York, NY CGOC CGOC 2019 Regional Meeting New York City
4/25/19 Meeting Austin, TX ARMA Austin ARMA April Chapter Meeting
4/25/19 Meeting Jacksonville, FL ARMA Jacksonville Zoo & Gardens – Lunch & Learn
4/25/19 1:00 PM 4/25/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Optimize Your eDiscovery Spend with Business Intelligence
4/25/19 1:00 PM 4/25/19 3:00 PM ET Webinar ALI-CLE The Ethical Implications of Electronically Stored Information
4/25/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar Everlaw Expose Hidden Gaps in Data Sets
with Data Visualization on Everlaw
4/25/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Data Governance – Combining Data Management with Organizational Change
4/26/19 8:00 AM 4/26/19 6:30 PM ET Conference New York, NY ABA Fifth Blockchain, Digital Currency and ICO National Institute
4/26/19 8:00 AM CT Conference Chicago, IL ABA 13th Annual National Institute on E-Discovery
4/28/19 1:30 PM 4/30/19 4:30 PM CT Conference Minneapolis, MN ACC Xchange
4/29/19 6:00 PM 5/31/19 4:00 PM MT Conference Scottsdale, AZ Ipro Ipro Tech Show
4/30/19 8:00 AM 5/3/19 6:30 PM ET Conference Washington, DC IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2019
4/30/19 9:00 AM 4/30/19 4:00 PM PT Conference San Francisco, CA Exterro Exterro Regional User Group San Francisco
4/30/19 1:00 PM 4/30/19 1:30 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Social Media Discovery™: Find the Smoking Gun
4/30/19 3:45 PM 4/30/19 6:00 PM ET Meeting Pittsburgh, PA ACC Project Management and the Use of Artificial Intelligence
5/1/19 10:00 AM 5/3/19 7:00 PM ET Conference New York, NY ABA 2019 Section of Litigation & Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division CLE Conference
5/1/19 12:00 PM 5/1/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar EDRM Law Day Webinar – A Practical Guide to Information Governance
5/2/19 Conference Milwaukee, WI ARMA ARMA Milwaukee Spring Seminar – Information Overload!
5/2/19 Meeting Albuquerque, NM ARMA Data Breach Preventions, Detection & Response
5/2/19 8:30 AM 5/3/19 1:00 PM ET Conference Charlotte, NC The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 Midyear Meeting 2019
5/2/19 10:00 AM ET Webinar ayfie Practical overview: Legal tech trends
5/2/19 9:00 AM 5/2/19 4:00 PM CT Conference Houston, TX Exterro Exterro Regional User Group Houston
5/2/09 1:30 PM 5/2/19 6:00 PM ET Conference Washington, DC ABA Law + Innovation: Guardians vs. Disruptors
5/3/19 Meeting Raleigh/Durham/Cary/RTP, NC ARMA ARMA Triangle Chapter Meeting
5/3/19 Meeting Uncasville, CT ARMA Roll the Dice with Data!
5/6/19 1:00 PM ET Webinar ABA Data Knows No Bounds: Managing Cross-Border Cyber Incidents
5/7/19 12:20 PM BST Webinar LexisNexis Webinars Evidence and disclosure in 2019
5/7/19 8:00 AM 5/7/19 11:30 AM CT Conference BDO
McDermott
Privacy & Cybersecurity Risk Management Series: Insights on Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
5/8/19 11:30 AM 5/8/19 12:15 PM ET Webinar Concept Searching Crossing the Content Chaos Chasm – Where Does Records Management Fit?
5/8/19 1:00 PM 5/8/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar ACEDS Doing More With Less: How Walmart and Veolia Are Revolutionizing Corporate Discovery
5/8/19 Meeting Tacoma, WA ARMA Office 365 Records Retention – ARMA Puget Sound Chapter Program
5/8/19 5:00 PM 5/10/19 1:00 PM ET Conference Austin, TX Women in eDiscovery Women in eDiscovery National Conference
5/9/19 Meeting Madison, WI ARMA Digital Lifecycle Management Workshop
5/9/19 12:00 PM 5/9/19 1:30 PM ET Meeting New York, NY Women in eDiscovery New York City – Save the date
5/9/19 1:00 PM 5/9/10 2:00 PM ET Webinar MER Making the ERP Sausage: A Case Study of RIM Inclusion During System Transition
5/9/19 1:00 PM 5/9/19 2:30 PM ET Webinar Strafford Obtaining and Admitting Cell Phone Evidence at Trial: Call Logs, Text Messages, and Location Data
5/9/19 2:00 PM ET Webinar DATAVERSITY Data Curation for Artificial Intelligence Strategies

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Date Organization Title
4/10/2019 Logikcull Announcing “In-House,” Logikcull’s New Video Series Bringing Legal Leaders Together Under One
4/10/2019 Neota Logic Neota Logic Launches First Microsoft Azure Environment in Ireland With The University of Limerick & McCann Fitzgerald
4/11/2019 Linguistic Systems, Inc. Linguistic Systems, Inc. Announces new Ai Translate Plugin™ for RelativityOne — the First Full-Service, Cloud-Based Translation Plugin for the SaaS Product
4/11/2019 KLDiscovery

HubStor

KLDiscovery and HubStor announce strategic partnership to offer Nebula™ Big Data Store
4/12/2019 ILTA ILTA Announces the Next Era of ILTACON: Evolves INSIGHT as ILTACON Europe
4/12/2019 ayfie ayfie Announces Strategic Agreement With Top Law Firm Thommessen
4/15/2019 Elite Discovery Elite Document Technology Re-brands as Elite Discovery
4/15/2019 OpenText OpenText Invests and Drives Growth in Asia Pacific Region
4/16/2019 Congruity360 Congruity360 Completes End-to-End eDiscovery Suite with Acquisition of SaGo
4/16/2019 CloudNine

LDM Global

CloudNine Awards Multiple LAW Certifications to LDM Global

 

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

Date Org By/About Title
3/27/2019 The Journal Record Gavel to Gavel: Biometrics in the workplace

David Limekiller (GableGotwals)

4/10/2019 JD Supra Proposed Legislation In Massachusetts Would Create Private Right Of Action For Improper Collection Of Personal Or Biometric Information

Michael Bertoncini (Jackson Lewis)

4/10/2019 JD Supra Colorado Bill Significantly Broadens Scope of the Consumer Protection Act

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

4/11/2019 Corporate Counsel Report: In-House Counsel Plan on Switching Firms Over Technology Use

Dan Clark

4/11/2019 Legaltech News AI-Based Crime Tools Aren’t the Problem. The Biased Data They Use Is.

Victoria Hudgins

4/11/2019 Logikcull Barriers to Rule 37(e) Sanctions: Proving the Loss of ESI and Resulting Prejudice

Casey Sullivan

4/11/2019 New Jersey Law Journal A Novice’s Introduction to e-Discovery in Arbitration

Marianne Espinosa (Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom & Sinins)

4/11/2019 Law.com Leverage an Effective eDiscovery Tool You Already Have (Podcast)
4/12/2019 eDiscovery Daily Blog Simon Says Two Years After Spoliation is Discovered is Too Late for Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law

Doug Austin

4/12/2019 Relativity Leveraging AI and Human Cognition to Impact the Legal Industry

Katelyn McCafferty (SMI Aware)

4/12/2019 Legaltech News Structured Data and E-Discovery: When Is It Time to Call in the Experts?

Aaron Vick (Cicayda)

4/15/2019 eDiscovery Daily Blog Why Does Production Have to be Such a Big Production? – Part 1

Tom O’Connor

4/15/2019 Legaltech News Can Artificial Intelligence Solve Big Law’s $60B Question?

Meredith Hobbs

4/15/2019 Legaltech News Despite Lower Costs, E-Discovery Reluctance Remains Among Small Law

Frank Ready

4/16/2019 Relativity Taking Charge of Your Legal Education (For Aspiring and Practicing Attorneys)

Sam Bock

4/16/2019 Digirupt.io How Big Data is Blowing Up Legal Costs

Ericka Chickowski

4/17/2019 eDiscovery Daily Blog Why Does Production Have to be Such a Big Production?, Part Two

Tom O’Connor

See past Weekly Trend Reports

Image of Judge Writing with Gavel on Table

Exterro and Duke/EDRM Judges Survey 2019 Series: Part 2, Taking Affirmative Action to Address E-Discovery Problems

This is the second in a series of posts evaluating the results of Exterro and Duke/EDRM’s 2019 survey of Federal district court and magistrate judges. With information from over 250 judges, the survey data offers a rich trove to mine.

Part 1 looked at responses to the first survey question, which was about failure to comply with Federal e-discovery rules.

This article, Part 2, focuses on responses to the second substantive set of questions in the survey, which go to how often and why judges had to take affirmative action in cases to address e-discovery problems.

The question

Judges were asked, “In the past 12 months, how often have you had to take affirmative action (e.g., require additional conferences either in camera or unsupervised or issue a warning or sanction) in a case to address an e-discovery problem?” They were direct to choose one of five options: “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, or “more than five”.

The judges also were asked to comment, “on what basis” did they have to take affirmative action.

Three key takeaways

  1. Most responding judges acted affirmatively at least once in the past 12 months. Only 15% said they had not needed to take any action. Of district judges, 78% said they acted affirmatively at least once. Magistrate judges were notably higher at 95%.
  2. Although responding judges acted affirmatively, they did not do so often. Seventy-nine percent of responding judges took affirmative action just 4 times or less in past 12 months. For district judges, the number was 88%; for magistrate judges, 67%.
  3. Judges also took affirmative action only in a tiny percentage of the cases they handled. (Here I need to add the important caveat that the following percentages are artificially high; more about that below.) For district court judges, the numbers range between 0.3% and 1.5%. For magistrate judges, the numbers range between 0.2% and 0.8%.

Placed in context, these numbers suggest that during the past 12 months responding judges (and Federal trial court judges generally) rarely felt the need to intervene to address e-discovery problems.

The responses

Adjustments

If judges had been given the option to answer “zero” or, in the case of district judges, “magistrates handle that”, the judges’ comments clearly indicate that a significant percentage of the judges would have selected one of those options. For the analyses in this article, I have adjusted the responses accordingly and am using “magistrate only”, “zero”, “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, or “more than five”.

A closer look at responding judges

Just over 250 judges responded to this survey – 139 district court judges, 110 magistrate judges, and two judges who did not indicate their roles. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that for calendar year 2018 there were 663 authorized district court judgeships. According to a 2016 paper prepared for the Federal Bar Association, at that time there were 531 full-time magistrate judges. Assuming the AO and FBA numbers to be accurate today, we got responses from approximately 21% of the bench.

Role Number Responding % Responding Total Reported % Reported Responding as % of Reported
District Judge 139 56% 663 56% 21%
Magistrate Judge 110 44% 531 44% 21%
Total 249 100% 1,194 100% 21%

Most judges acted affirmatively

Ninety two percent of responding judges answered this set of questions. Of those judges, 15% said that in the past year they had not had to take any affirmative action to address e-discovery problems.

Compare answers from magistrate and district court judges, and you see the expected difference between the two groups. Ninety-five percent of responding magistrate judges said they had taken affirmative action at least once in the past 12 months. For district court judges the number was lower, at 78%. Two district court judges specially noted that they passed these issues along to magistrate judges.

Took Affirmative Action District Judge Magistrate Judge All
Never 29 5 34
At least once 100 97 198
Total 129 102 232

Overall, judges did not have to act affirmatively often. As the chart and tables below show, 79% of the judges took affirmative action less than five times in the past 12 months. For district court judges the number was 88%; for magistrate judges, it was 67%. Only 21% of responding judges took affirmative action five times or more. District judges were less at 12% and magistrate judges notably higher at 33%.

Took Action – All Percentage Cumulative Percentage
Magistrates handle 1% 1%
0 times 14% 15%
1 times 21% 35%
2 times 24% 59%
3 times 13% 73%
4 times 6% 79%
5+ times 21% 100%
Total 100%
Took Action – District Court Percentage Cumulative Percentage
Magistrates handle 2% 2%
0 times 21% 22%
1 times 22% 44%
2 times 22% 67%
3 times 16% 82%
4 times 6% 88%
5+ times 12% 100%
Total 100%
Took Action – Magistrate Percentage Cumulative Percentage
Magistrates handle N/A N/A
0 times 5% 5%
1 times 20% 25%
2 times 25% 50%
3 times 11% 61%
4 times 6% 67%
5+ times 33% 100%
Total 100%

But most judges acted affirmatively only rarely

Judges took affirmative action only in a tiny percentage of the cases they handled, at most just over 1.5% and most likely almost always far less than that.

The first step toward arriving at this conclusion is to calculate the average number of cases handled each year by district court and magistrate court judges. As explained below, it appears those numbers are somewhere in the range of 336 matters per year for district court judges and 656 for magistrate judges.

According to Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics 2018 from the Administrative Office, in the 12-month period ending March 31, 2018 there were 358,563 civil and criminal matters filed in U.S. district courts. Of those, 277,010 were civil matters. Subtracting prisoner petitions, there remain 233,045 matters. The Administrative Office also reports that for calendar year 2018 there are 663 authorized district court judgeships. Combined those numbers, and it appears that on average district court judges handle approximately 336 matters a year.

The Administrative Office tells us that in 2018 magistrate judges handled 348,421 civil matters. According to a 2016 paper prepared for the Federal Bar Association, at the time there were 531 full-time magistrate judges. Assuming the number of magistrate judges has held steady, then on average magistrate judges handled approximately 656 matters last year.

District Judges Magistrate Judges
Number of matters handled 223,045 348,421
Number of judges 663 531
Average number of matters per judge 336 656

The second step is to calculate frequency of affirmative actions, where that frequency is defined as the number of times in the year a judge took affirmative action divided by the number of matters a judge handled.

Here is where the above-mentioned caveat comes into play. Because of the specific wording of our question (“how often have you had to take affirmative action … in a case”), we do not know from the response whether judges taking affirmative action more than once did so in the same case or in two separate cases. For this exercise, however, I need to assume that each time a judge took an affirmative action, the judge did so in a different matter. I know this assumption is wrong, as the judges’ indicate otherwise, but I have no better data to work with. This means that the numbers below overstate, most likely substantially, the percentage of cases on judges’ dockets where the judges had to take affirmative action.

Nonetheless, here are the calculations.

Number of Matters with Affirmative Action Taken as % of Docket
No. of Matters with Affirm Action District Judge Magistrate Judge
1 matter 0.3% 0.2%
2 matters 0.6% 0.3%
3 matters 0.9% 0.5%
4 matters 1.2% 0.6%
5+ matters 1.5% 0.8%

The implication is clear. Matters in which judges find themselves having to take affirmative action only account for a tiny part of the judges’ overall dockets. For district court judges, the numbers range between 0.3% and 1.5% according the above calculations and should be noticeably lower. For magistrate judges, the numbers range between 0.2% and 0.8% with the same cautionary comment.

Comments

In addition to being asked how often they took affirmative action in cases to address e-discovery problems, judges were asked to comment as to the bases for which they took that action.

DUKE/EDRM organized the comments into seven groups:

  • On the basis of misconduct, neglect, or rule violation
  • On the basis of a dispute
  • On the basis of communication issues
  • To provide guidance
  • Regular practice
  • On the basis of privilege issues
  • Basis unspecified (a catch-all group we won’t go into here)

As in Part 1, I won’t fill out this post with the full set of comments; those are available on the DUKE/EDRM site. Following, instead, is my distillation of the comments.

On the basis of misconduct, neglect, or rule violation

Most of this group of comments focused on attorneys’ failure to do something. These included failures to: confer with opponents meaningfully or even at all; be specific in responses and objections; understand their client’s data and e-discovery practices; search for data appropriately or diligently; search the data itself appropriately or diligently; deliver complete productions; act timely or act at all; comply with court orders; and understand e-discovery itself or turn to someone who does for assistance.

Many of the comments centered on attorneys’ abuse of the e-discovery process, such as: making overbroad requests; using boilerplate or improper objections or responses; engineering inappropriate delay; or refusing to engage in genuine efforts to confer or to resolve disputes before turning to the court.

On the basis of a dispute

Perhaps the most fundamental dispute leading to judges taking affirmative action to address e-discovery problems arose when each side thought it was reasonable and the other side was wrong and neither side seemed willing to re-assess those positions.

Many disputes leading to judges taking affirmative action stemmed from counsels’ inability to agree. Areas where they could not (or preferred not to) come to agreement included: scope and limits of discovery to be engaged in; initial e-discovery actions to be taken; search terms; deadlines; and scope of ESI to be produced.

Other disputes came from lawyers taking unilateral action. One-sided actions include requesting parties asking for too much before trying to determine what actually might be reasonable, as well as responding parties producing only what they wanted to without conveying how they had limited their processes.

Some disputes appeared to be born of ignorance, such as where attorneys over-promised because they did not understand what they are committing themselves or their clients to do.

Finally, some disputes seemed to be the result of an apparent desire to have issues remain unresolved: parties refuse to engage in meaningful communications; stonewall on productions without offering reasonable alternatives; and demand data for data’s sake rather than to advance the theory of the case.

On the basis of communication issues

 “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” Too often attorneys didn’t meet, didn’t talk, didn’t write, didn’t plan. And when they did, too regularly they seemed to be the proverbial ships passing in the night.

To provide guidance

Some judges felt they had to act affirmatively to so as to give guidance, especially to inexperienced counsel, for example directing parties to refine and identify their e-discovery.

Regular practice

Some judges see themselves as pursuing a regular practice of acting affirmatively, where in their local rules they call for conferences, in more complex cases require counsel to meet and confer with IT people participating, and sometimes just bring counsel into the courthouse so the attorneys can hammer things out on a face-to-face basis.

On the basis of privilege issues

Privilege issues can lead to judges needing to take affirmative action. Part of this appears to be inherent in the difficulties and complexities posed by privilege concerns. Part arises from overly aggressive assertion of privilege.

About the survey

In late 2018, Duke/EDRM and Exterro conducted a survey of Federal judges, the fifth year for Exterro and the second for Duke/EDRM. The survey contained over 20 groups of questions. More than 250 Federal district court and magistrate judges responded to the survey.

Exterro and Duke/EDRM published survey results in early 2019. Exterro’s report on the results is available here. Duke/EDRM’s compilation of results, including the text of comments from judges responding to specific questions, is available here.

The astute observer will notice that tallies used in this and subsequent posts differ slightly from those appearing in the Duke/EDRM and Exterro materials. Generally those differences come from efforts on my part to reconcile answers to choose-an-option questions with narrative comments provided by the judges.

Survey demographics

Roles

Respondents are pretty evenly divided between district court and magistrate judges. Of the 251 Federal judges responding to the survey, 55% identified themselves as district court judges and 44% said they are magistrate judges. Of the district judges, 4% reported that they are chief judges, 6% are retired, and less than 1% are on senior status. Just over 1% of the magistrate judges noted that they are chief magistrate judges and less than 1% said they are retired.

Years on the bench

The responding judges are a seasoned group. Overall, 63% of the judges have been on the bench for at least 11 years; 83% for six years or more. District court judges have more experience – their largest cohort, at 46%, has been on the job for 21 years or more – while responding magistrate judges have not served as long – their biggest group, at 33%, clocks in at between 6 and 10 years. These differences are not surprising as district court judges have lifetime tenures while magistrate judges are appointed for renewable eight-year terms.

ACEDS Community Newsletter for the Week of April 11

BitsBytes.png

April 11, 2019 | VOL. 8 | NO. 15

Sam Bock, Relativity: Preservation on Pennsylvania Avenue: e-Discovery Training
at the White House 
Read more

Richard Tromans, Artificial Lawyer: EY, Riverview and Pangea3 
Read more

Rob Robinson, ComplexDiscovery: eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey:
Spring 2019 
Read more

Victoria Hudgins, Legaltech News: E-Discovery Training Lagging in Most Legal
Departments 
Read m
ore

Lukas Mikelionis, Fox News: FEMA Exposed Sensitive Private Data of 2.3M
Survivors 
Read 
more

George Socha, BDO: Weekly Trend Report – 4/10/2019 Insights
Read more

LLM Law Review & ACEDS Co-Host Tokyo Summit – Sponsorship
Opportunities Available 
Learn more and register here

MaryTokyoPanel

ACEDS Affiliate News

ACEDS Announces Everlaw as Newest Premier Diamond Level Affiliate Partner 
Read more

ACEDS Announces ZyLAB Renews as Premier Gold Level Affiliate Partner 
Read more

ACEDS Announces Xact Data Discovery Renews as Premier Diamond Level
Affiliate Partner 
Read more

Jamie Chan, Ricoh: The Critical Questions You Need to Ask When Assessing
your eDiscovery Process 
Read more

Everlaw White Paper: Illuminating Dark Data with Everlaw
Read 
more

The Master’s Conference: CLE EVENT-Chicago Windy City Legal And Data Event 
Read m
ore

EDiscoveryVoice_email

ACEDS Chapter News and Events

We are excited to announce new ACEDS Chapters are being formed in Gulf Coast
(LA, MS, AL), Charleston, South Africa, Toronto, Tokyo, Ireland, Kansas City, Seattle,
Dallas, Ohio, Atlanta, Sydney and Melbourne Australia. Please reach out to
chapters@aceds.org if you are interested in being part of the formation, steering
committee, or a member. 

April 17 – Chicago – Train Series: Networking in Downers Grove
Learn more and register here

May 15 – Philadelphia – Spring Chapter Meeting
Learn more and register here

May 17 – South Florida – Ethics & eDiscovery – Ethics & Technology Practice
Learn more and register here

May 21 – Twin Cities – Data Collection: An In-House Perspective
Learn more and register here

August 7 – New England – Sunset Cruise *Save the Date*
Learn more and register here

 

 


advertisement
Compliance DS