It’s time to think outside the box of familiar sources of electronically stored information (ESI). Our devices are tracking us, and the data they collect is making its way into the courtroom. Discovery and smart technology was the topic of “The Connected World: A Lawyer’s Guide to the Internet of Things,” the latest CLE from the E-Discovery, Information Governance and Cybersecurity Section of the IndyBar.

In the eDiscovery lifecycle,  collection  is the stage of copying electronically stored information in order to make it available to the legal team for review and production. Identification determines the scope of  collection  while preservation ensures that relevant ESI is there when it’s needed.  Collection  follows and depends on identification and preservation. There are four pillars of defensible collection plans.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) poses significant new risks in copying, transferring and using EU-based data in US legal matters. The problem is acute for US companies with employees in Europe.

The legal hold is the mainstay of eDiscovery preservation for businesses of all sizes. Legal holds are implemented using a written legal hold notice. An effective legal hold moves through four distinct stages: draft the notice; distribute the notice; manage the hold; and release the hold.

Preservation in eDiscovery is at the intersection of law, technology and strategy. It must fulfill the party’s legal duty. It should be technologically feasible and cost-effective. And it offers the best return on investment when it is treated as part of – not apart from – the litigation plan.

Every case will benefit from an effective discovery conference under Rule 26(f) or comparable state rule. That was the key takeaway from the recent Indianapolis Bar Association CLE “E-Discovery in Insurance Coverage Litigation.” The presentation, a panel discussion presented by the IndyBar’s E-Discovery, Information Governance & Cybersecurity Section, also offered specific practice pointers for making the most of the meet and confer.

Discover how using analytics in document review helps you cull down a large data set, prioritize review of relevant documents and expand your search beyond keywords. In this Practice Tips episode from the Connecticut Bar Association, QDiscovery Project Manager Rochelle Duyan discusses three essential analytics tools for the review process. 

This is the third and final part of a series on the identification stage of eDiscovery. Part one was an overview of purpose, process and practical considerations. Parts two and three are a detailed review of the five-step process of identification.

Storage media is a common term found throughout both forensic and eDiscovery matters. It is generally used to describe devices that store electronic documents, application data or user information. 

Because electronic data can easily be overwritten and purged – whether deliberately or inadvertently – it is critical to act quickly to have relevant ESI preserved. As soon as litigation is anticipated, a preservation letter should be sent to the opposing party to maximize the available information to help you make your case.