With two major conferences back-to-back, The Masters Conference (click here) and the ACC Annual Meeting (click here) we have been a bit pressed for time to write up our thoughts on both plus all the interviews we conducted at each.

We agree with Brett Burney’s observation:  vendors at the Masters Conference seemed to emphasize a general lean towards the “left side”” of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model.    For Brett’s full post click here .

And it was the same at the ACC Annual meeting.  The seminars and presenters (and the attendees) repeated the same theme:  how do we, as in-house counsel, manage our endless streams of digital data?  It was more than just “how do we reduce the costs for e-discovery and cut the time necessary to complete EDD projects?”   As we said in our first post from ACC (click here) corporations need “enterprise class products” because of the global convergence of audit, compliance, regulation, and risk.  Because the mantra was: cost and communication.  Give us technologies that make all our information “reasonably accessible and at an affordable cost …. help us close the gap between the technology out there and what we need”.  And help us manage the data at the start.   Our coverage at ACC was extensive, and we chalked up 8 major interviews.  We’ll have much more on ACC in our wrap-up later today. 

But now, some observations on The Masters Conference:

On Tuesday and Wednesday, October 13 and 14, 2009, the Ronald Reagan Center hosted the Masters Conference Series for Legal Professionals with a theme of Navigating through Discovery, Risk and Security.

The big news: the guiding light of the Conference, Sasha Hefler, has left The Masters Conference and has joined a major e-discovery consulting company (for our profile on Sasha click here).   There will be a press release issued this week detailing her new position.  It is a company that has pioneered “early information assessment” and is a step ahead in the ECA market. 

One big take-away for contract attorneys who make up the largest percentage of Posse List members was a suggestion by Dave Benton (head of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery at The Home Depot) who recommended that those interested in developing the skills needed for new e-discovery should become members of the American Society of Digital Forensics and eDiscovery (www.asdfed.org) a non-profit organization that promotes education and the distribution of information related to digital forensics and electronic discovery.  There is a Washington, DC chapter.  With so many contract attorneys moving away from the document review side of the EDRM (or who want to move away from that side) it is a good suggestion.  We’ll have a more detailed post about Asdfed.

We had various reporters at the two days of educational tracks and the following are some highlights from various panel discussions and seminars on everything from leveraging cloud computing, to early case assessment tool evolution, to discovery cost determination and cost cutting. The sessions were held in 3 staggered conference rooms with space for 100 to 250 attendees in lecture hall format, including two projection screens for presenting the more difficult lecture or panel concepts. (For a more detailed agenda of what was covered click here).

Each day had its own keynote speaker.

On Day One the keynote speaker was Randy Sabett, a partner in the Sonnenschein law firm and based in the D.C. office  He is a member of the Internet, Communications & Data Protection practice. He counsels on information security, privacy, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), digital and electronic signatures, federated identity, Sarbanes-Oxley, state and federal information security laws, identity theft, and security breaches among other areas.  Randy is a commissioner for the Commission on Cyber Security for the Obama Administration and teaches information policy as an adjunct professor at George Washington University and is on the faculty of IANS.

Sandy’s address was entitled  “The Evolving Nature of Data Protection…And Some New Ideas  To Consider” and focused heavily on one of the themes of the conference, “cyber security.” 

Historically, corporate America has perceived data protection purely as an unavoidable expense.  A number of factors have contributed to a shift in this view point, including continued and worsening data breaches involving personal information, much more focused and insidious attacks, and very high profile losses of intellectual property.  Now, Congress has become an active participant with at least 30 bills pending that in some way, shape, or form relate to data security.  What are some of the more radical players considering in protecting their data?  Some of Randy’s comments:

 1.  There is growing activity at the state and federal levels:  States are increasingly enacting breach of security notification and encryption requirements.  Earlier this year the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) was signed as a part of the Stimulus bill, providing funds to improve health IT systems for greater data production.  Over 30 other security related bills that are still pending. 

2.  Security DOES NOT equal compliance:  Balance must be achieved between security and compliance because by solely focusing on security you might miss something that is required from a compliance perspective.  On the other hand, you may be in compliance, but overlook something that needs to be done to keep your data secure.  

3.  Protecting the network enterprise:  The “perimeter” can no longer be the sole focal point as more of as more information resides outside the “perimeter” of a company.  This presents increasing vulnerability/risk to cyber attack.  A security culture must be developed within an organization to protect the network enterprise. 

4. What does cyber security have to do with e-discovery?  According to Sabett, there is a large overlap.  Figuring out where data is stored and how to preserve the data free of security risks is necessary for both computer security and eDiscovery professionals. There is procedural and technical overlap that requires computer security professionals to play active role in both areas: Some of the procedures followed and technical methods developed from an information security perspective are the same techniques and procedures used and applied on the ediscovery on side of equation: example ediscovery procedures and techniques need to take into account how and to what extent encrypted data will be identified, accessed, etc.

5. One of the keys in dealing with information security and e-discovery is to think progressively about data protection and balance that progressive way of thinking with the number one issue: the budget available to achieve it.  Information security and ediscovery are cost sources.

6.   Other examples of progressive thinking:

         - Offensive cyber capabilities

         – Cross compliance initiatives

         -  Cloud computing

         -  Follow trends in information security laws and legislative activities

         - Develop a security culture within the organization

         - Getting rid of credit card numbers altogether (the technology is available)

The Day Two keynote speaker, Magistrate Judge John Facciola, has been a US Magistrate Judge in DC since 1997. Prior to the bench, Judge Facciola was an assistant DA in Manhattan from 1969-1973, and in private practice in DC from 1974-1982. He joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1982 and served as Chief of the Special Proceedings section from 1989 until his appointment as magistrate judge. He now is a frequent lecturer and speaker on the topic of electronic discovery as well as a member of the Sedona Conference Advisory Board and the Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute Advisory Board. He is also the former editor in chief of The Federal Courts Law Review, the electronic law journal of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. He has recently been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Federal Judicial Center. His most recent publication is Sailing on Confused Seas: Privilege Waiver and the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2006 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 7 (2006). He received his A.B. from the College of the Holy Cross and his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Judge Facciola focused his remarks on ESI and how best to navigate competent legal practice with a perspective from both sides of the bench. He instructed that attorneys with the best approach to ESI as a litigation tool know that:

▪  humility is a key trait: A judge notes when an attorney does not have the humility required, by overpromising – waiting until discovery deadline is impending only to assure a judge that 30 days is sufficient to get discovery done….several months in a row. And by underpromising – as in telling a judge that something like removing software cannot be done, only to have the judge’s clerk do just that in chambers during a 15 minute recess. Both affect credibility with the judge.

Have the humility to appreciate that on the technical side of discovery, there is a lot to understand and there must be a willingness to educate oneself and/or associate with those who have the technical skills or knowledge necessary to assist in educating oneself. You must be willing to associate with others who know the e-discovery industry and be prepared to work collaboratively between and among lawyers, and those in the technical services industry. Failure to do so, can often lead to making tactical errors in a case and bringing into question the issue of attorney competence and ability to effectively represent the client.

▪   birds of a feather: associate with those who know what they are doing in the ESI realm. Attend a Rule 26(f) conference with a forensic scientist with you every time.

 ▪   law is becoming a team sport: more and more, law is only for those that never stop learning, and look to their fellow members of the bar to help them learn the nuances in this Brave New World.

▪    the unique roleof the judge: a judge brings order, peace and sanity to litigation – and must handle larger volumes than ever thought possible. For example, the next generation of servers and PC’s will include storage capacity of an ectobyte – to provide some perspective, FIVE ectobytes of storage would include “all words ever spoken.”

He emphasized:  the role of the judge is bring order, peace, and sanity to pending cases by entering orders or enforcing orders which bring teeth to the notion of cooperation between and among the parties.

Although there is a great notoriety around cases in which there are court ordered sanctions against an attorney, party or both ( i.e spoliation) in reality,  judicial attitudes toward the sanction power is this: let’s not order sanctions and rather mediate toward “How do we fix this?” prior to the point of sanction. The success of a judge depends upon their ability to get people involved in litigation to cooperate and work collaboratively.. And judges must also be willing to self educate in the technical realm of discovery and associate with those in the industry that have the technical expertise.

▪   put some teeth in it: the judge is in the position to ensure litigants and their attorneys cooperate, and challenge the adversarial system as we now know it.

▪   break new ground: a judge observing the Sedona Conference carefully also notes that each session “blows up” a chapter at a time from the civil procedure textbook. He challenged attendees to contemplate what “the cloud” is doing to such basic concepts as personal jurisdiction when servers are anywhere in the world.            

His conclusion: judges and lawyers are lay persons when it comes to the subject matter of e-discovery and have an obligation to develop a level of competency and willingness to work collaboratively. Both need to recognize and understand what they are capable of from a competency stand point and where they need education or expertise.  

And that provides a nice segue to the key panel of the conference ….

US-UK Judicial Panel on E-Discovery

Although the US leads the world in both the legal and technical aspects of electronic discovery, there is a general acceptance that there is much to do to make this aspect of litigation an efficient and cost-effective component of case management. Although the essential difficulties are the same in England and Wales, the approach taken is a slightly different one, and there is growing recognition that the two jurisdictions have something to learn from each other.
 
Chief US Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm and US Magistrate Judge John Facciola are the undisputed leaders of judicial thought in this area in the US. Their counterparts in the UK are Senior Master Whitaker and His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC.

These four were brought together again by Chris Dale of the UK based e-Disclosure Information Project (for our profile on Chris click here and for a link to his site is click here).  It was a repeat of a successful panel in London in May 2009, moderated by Patrick Burke, Assistant General Counsel at Guidance Software.  For our profile on Patrick click here.

Patrick has already written about the panel on his blog so rather than duplicate comments please click here for his analysis.

Among the other sessions we covered:

E-Discovery: The Government Perspective

Private industry struggles with the scope and burdens of e-discovery, but so do government entities, whether as the requesting or responding party. This panel discussion addressed how government agencies are structuring their internal e-discovery groups and how they expect private industry to respond to their requests.

Wendy Butler Curtis, Special Counsel for E-Discovery, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP was moderator, and she encouraged a healthy discussion among Paul Bohr, enforcement  attorney with the SEC; Larry Creech, of the U.S. Postal Service; and David Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel at the FTC. The panel discussed, among other things, how the government addresses the cost of electronic discovery.

A summary of their comments:

- The FTC encourages dialogue, Shonka said.  His agency makes broad requests necessarily, and will refine those requests often after a discussion with an attorney or based upon prior, recent investigations. They key is to pick up the phone and discuss costs in time and money with the government. With the FTC handling the data in house, the government lawyers are most able to have discretion during an investigatory request.

-  Bohr states that he is always shocked when private securities attorneys say there is a “lack of communication”’ with the SEC – because he is always willing to meet on costs of his requests, and yet seldom even get the initial phone call.  His preference is to get a call from a compliance officer, perhaps with a series of report layouts to guide the discussion, so that Bohr’s request targets the most relevant and available information. The SEC also handles produced data in house, so Bohr and his colleagues welcome discussion on what makes sense financially and practically.

- Creech’s ” businessman’s perspective” was apparent during his overview of policy. He feels strongly that every entity should have a “datamap” of all electronic information held by the entity. This datamap will guide internal resource planning and budgeting through retention schedules and federal retention laws, and will guide discussions with government when a request arrives. He reminds the panel and attendees that this is not a “money maker” per se, so has not received the attention it deserves. Creech cautions that as the matters work through the courts, such information can be a “money loser” when policy-not-followed results in judicial sanctions/fines or in information being produced  to adversaries in discovery and resulting in large awards in litigation.

Effective Document Collection, Legal Hold Protocols (… and the cost, my God, the cost!!)

This was a panel discussion with a Powerpoint presentation that never got past the first slide.  Well, that’s not quite true – at the end they showed the last slide, with the names of the moderator and panelists.  The moderator was Craig Carpenter (Recommind, in-house counsel), while the panelists were Wendy Curtis (Orrick Herrington), Julia Peixoto (DHL in-house counsel), and Tess Blair (Morgan Lewis) and they did a fabulous job.

The reason that the session never got beyond the first slide was that it took on a life of its own and wandered from the path dictated by its deck of slides.  It was a wonderful collaborative stroll with comments triggering supporting comments or segues onto related topics. Comments and questions from the audience were welcomed and incorporated into the discussion and the session was very fruitful and covered the topic as well as it could in an hour.  The panelists’ contributions complemented each other effectively and they were obviously chosen for the different perspectives that they brought to the session.

Having said this, what were the paths strolled down?  Our notes went all over the place and maybe somewhat cryptic, but here is a reconstruction of the main points:

    Discussion of the legal hold process.   First takeaway:  There is no specific or standard form, no one rule, no one size fits all.   Second takeaway: It is important to know your client, the corporate culture, how employees work together, and what tools are available.  Also, to what extent legal matters are handled in-house.  Third takeaway:  There is little case law in this area and few judges are aware of the law.  Therefore, be balanced, be reasonable, be consistent, and be practical.   A plaintiff will send out a litigation hold notice, also called a preservation notice, when there is a “reasonable anticipation of litigation”.  It is also at this point that you can start to apply any privilege protection under the Work Product doctrine.  At this point you should get a survey of what documents people have.  From this you can determine who the key custodians are, what the sources of the data are, and what types of documents or data you have.   You will later provide a collection certificate that specifies the locations of all the relevant documents and that they have been produced.  You will be able to show good faith by establishing and following policy for the 1) training, 2) implementation, and 3) managing of the collection.   You need to have a good faith argument for not preserving data.  Factors usually used are proportionality and cost.  As a practical matter, a lot of negotiation is done behind the scenes and you can have a meet and confer on the side.  

     Quick preservation of relevant data.   A litigation hold affects all of the data that is within the possession, custody, or control of the company.  The company has to identify, preserve, and collect this data.  The company  can make this easier by having the proper processes in place and by anticipating litigation.  This is especially important for a company that is sued frequently.  Most records now are electronic and they present their own challenges.  It is important to be consistent and understand the consequences of what you are doing.  In-house counsel does not want to overconserve, because of the significant costs involved.  You cannot do this in an ad hoc manner.  You need to have policies and procedures for document retention and production.  Also, you need to spend some time and effort up front.  This will save you a lot of time later, and you need to convince the finance people of this savings.  The use of ediscovery tools can be used to automate the process and also save some of the costs.  Advise your client that ESI that is not stored, is not in its possession, custody, or control and, therefore, does not need to be produced.   Similarly, and for the same reason, IM is usually not saved or archived.  You need to ask each person in the organization how they manage their data and advise them accordingly.  (The caveat with this is that as soon as you give advice to your client, the technology will have changed.)   In the discussion on back-up tapes, it was noted that this is the least efficient method for storage and recovery, that the data is generally elsewhere, and that backup tapes are redundant. They only form a snapshot at a particular point in time and it is the last full back up tape that is the most important.  The company can save lots of money by even a slight modification in its backup procedure and schedule.  Note here that if data is not deemed to be reasonable accessible, it does not have to be produced.  The client should be counseled to use back up tapes only for disaster relief.

    What about the costs?   It is expensive to lock down data.  Internally, the company should have a policy in place to prevent the unnecessary retention of records.  Ninety-five percent of a business’ records consists of junk!  Determine what needs to be retained and involve the IT, business, and records management people. It is useful to use date ranges for this purpose.  Outside counsel should be used to narrow the scope and to negotiate – that is where they are effective. But don’t let outside counsel run the matter and don’t do things by consensus; the company needs to take ownership and determine the direction, so long as it’s done reasonably.   Use proportionality.  Consider the dollar value of the cases and give priority to your high profile cases; for a small case take a less costly approach (it might be sufficient to stash a CPU or retain a hard drive in a storage area, for example).  Also, limit the number of vendors that you send your data to.

     Some of the questions asked/answers given:

              Q.        Do you always have to consult outside counsel before lifting the hold?

             A.         No.  In fact, you can schedule an automatic lift that will occur unless there is an affirmative objection by outside counsel.  It is often advisable to do a “targeted” preservation instead of a “blanket” preservation, and this makes it easier to lift a hold.

             Q.        Do you have to notify the custodian that you are preserving his data?

            A.         No, and there are ways to preserve the data without notifying the custodian.  In fact, there are even ways to download his electronic data from the back end.

            Q.        What if your client is involved in the litigation, but is not a party to it?

           A.         Sorry.  Pursuant to Rule 45, a subpoena applies equally to a third party.  But you can move to quash.

            Q.        What do you do if you are served with a subpoena?

           A.         If you get an agency subpoena, be sure to wear both a belt and suspenders initially (Wendy Curtis).  Later, you can negotiate the scope with the agency or move to quash.

           Q.        What about data archiving?

           A.         Very few companies have archives in place at the moment.  Archiving is a massive (and expensive) undertaking.

          And a shout from the audience:  “Eh, what the hell.  The world is going to be Google-ized anyway!”

        Our “notable quotes” concerning the present state of effective document collection:

                “Business is not designed to preserve records — it is designed to make money.”

                 “The cost of preservation is peanuts compared to the cost of collection.”

                 “To reduce the costs, eliminate the junk.”

                 “We are at the end of the beginning” (Tess Blair).  It will take another decade to get to the middle and most clients are still at the fundamental stage.  We desperately need people with new skill sets to come on board”.

                  “Technology can help, but first you need to have a very solid process in place.”
Legal Outsourcing:  Analysis of the Myths and Realities and its Impact to Counsel

Changing business drivers within the U.S. legal industry have compelled corporate counsel and law firms to reassess the traditional cost structures and resource allocation within their relationship.   Legal outsourcing (the proponents say) has proven to be “valuable for both when properly integrated into the litigation process”.   Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?  But is the bane of U.S. contract attorneys.

And although many global corporations and law firms are embarking upon outsourcing strategies, questions and hesitancies remain for many regarding qualifications, capabilities, ethics, and geographic considerations.

But we have decided to award this session the booby award.  This so-called “analysis of myths and realities” created its own self-serving construct, spoke in generalities, and did not give enough attention to the special nature of legal offshoring.  The real value of this session consisted of the comments from the audience and not the presenters, who made me think of something Judge Facciola said earlier in the day: the importance for lawyers in knowing what they don’t know.  Perhaps the presenters, unknowing as they are, could have improved their session by outsourcing it.

New World Technology and Enterprise Opportunity: Cloud Governance, VOIP and Unified Messaging – Mission Impossible and Information Assurance

Just when corporations began to stabilize their IT services, an explosive new portfolio of technologies are emerging. These new services are economically compelling, but present general counsel with new legal complexities. Suddenly, all of the related records are “in the cloud” , e-communications are tweets and texts, “unified communications“ are Voice over the Internet (VoIP), email converts to voice recordings, voice converts to text, systems track “presence” and location. Privacy, discovery, surveillance, Federal communications law, cloud computing—how does legal ever gain control over the risks?

This new “kid” on the block (unified communications)  was introduced to attendees at the Masters Conference by Jeff Ritter (of Waters Edge Consulting) with the claim that, as a new way for storing business communications, it will displace email.  Instant messaging, VOIP, Video, email to voicemail, voicemail to email, and presence are all contained in unified communications (“presence” is the ability to let the system know how to communicate with you and where you are.)  These forms of communication are all creating kinds of records, with huge amounts of context, that defy “finding”.  And when you try to find them, it may violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 

In the world of electronically stored information (ESI), and especially in the rapidly expanding space where corporate communications thrive, there is an evolution of data forms which, although not well understood by lawyers generally, is actually already being stored and is subject to discovery under the new Federal Rules.  In some cases, like that of cloud computing, it is the manner of storage that is innovative; in other cases, it is the behind-the-scenes technology of innovations whose surface functionality we are all familiar with as users, such as internet telephony (Voice-over-Internet-Protocols), Instant Messaging (IM), audio to text and text to audio message conversions, and so-called “presences” which, in response to messaging, signal an individual’s presence or absence at a certain place and time.

Ritter raised three crucial questions:

1. What unified communications services are being brought in and what will be allowed?

2.  What unified communication session-related content and data will be stored?  (session logs, session content records, source content records)

3.  What uses will be made of any stored unified communication related content or management content?  (What will we do with the data?  Security wants to analyze records historically, for example.)

There was discussion of the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (major point is that it is illegal to listen to conversations in audio form) and the difference in privacy distinctions between Europe and the United States.  There was discussion of who should make up the unified communication implementation team of the business.  And there was considerable discussion of packet architecture, since this is the common denominator of the different communications and of different protocols.  Importantly, once the packet is sent, it cannot be reassembled without all of the data that is in the packet.  None of these topics will be explained here, since those interested in them can readily research them on the internet or in publications. 

Ritter has an uncommon talent for visualizing the digital landscape in lawyerly terms.  Seen through his eyes, the sensory overload of resources and devices on the scene today – and even those still barely discernible on the horizon – take on legal shape and substance. And they have consequences.  One of Ritter’s strengths is his ability to clarify the datalogic of these digital forms of communication. As he drills down, you see that they all rely on a packet architecture similar to internet protocols, and you realize that all are decodable and can be reconstructed to recover supposedly transient historical conversations and messages. Indeed, Ritter’s bread and butter is expert testimony. He delights in deconstructing the assertions and credibility of corporate affiants whose claims conflict with the historical record he produces – a record most were unaware existed.  

Another strong focus of his presentation is trustworthiness. His warning: security for these stored data forms is frequently absent. Ritter told stories of “penetration” tests of clouds in which the expert discovered worms capable of exporting data to offsite bad actors. In some particularly embarrassing cases, cloud storage techniques in use by discovery vendors were found to be insecure – vendors to whom in-house counsel had entrusted all manner of sensitive corporate data under an assumption of confidentiality.  

Many of Ritter’s presentations from previous events are already viewable on his blog (click here) but we encouraged him to make this one available as well.  You will his presentation by clicking here and a companion piece by clicking here.   The Posse List plans to publish a more in-depth interview with Ritter.

Bridging the Gap Between Forensics and Native Review

With many corporations defaulting to forensic imaging as a standard methodology for data collection and the cost savings associated with performing at native review – many corporations and service providers are seeking ways to bridge the gap between these two approaches. The session focuse on how new techniques for performing economical forensic acquisitions, an ways of extracting information from these sources.

The panel was sponsored by Nuix and before the session we spoke at length with Stephen Stewart, CTO of NUIX.  The panel discussed the different generations of tools for harvesting data, emphasized full forensic imaging, told war stories of criminal investigations where they had discovered key evidence in the unallocated disk space (i.e., perps had “erased” incriminating computer files), and admonished attendees to be ever mindful of sound forensic processing procedures to preserve chain of custody, etc.

The benefit of the session for professionals engaged in criminal investigations was clear. We suppose some of the more technical takeaways would apply equally to professionals harvesting for Early Case Assessment in corporate environments (hence the presence of Intel’s in-house litigation support expert, Steve Watson, who we met at the IQPC conference in Brussels.

After the session the panelists raved to us about the power of NUIX in ECA. Chuck Kellner (Vice President of E-Discovery Consulting, Anacomp) spoke of its incomparable power and speed; Gary Amos (Professor of Forensic Technology, George Mason University) added that, unlike other software, NUIX seems to have been written with the Rules of Evidence in mind.   But during the session, none really mentioned this tool – they were all focusing on a stage of harvesting that precedes use of NUIX – the stage when best practice tools include FTK Imager (by AccessData who was not at the conference) and Encase by Guidance Software.

Which brings us to our last bit … early case assessment, the gorilla in the room and the subject area that seemed to dominate the conference.

As we have reported in several posts these last few months, early case assessment (ECA) has been a major focus this past year an a half.   And, there have been no shortage of of ECA solutions to hit the market.  Obviously, as we have also been contending for over 18 months, a single integrated and affordable e-discovery platform will revolutionize e-discovery processing. 

Right now there seem to be 3 vendors leading the ECA market according to surveys conducted by The Cowen Group and ILTA:  ClearWell, Recommind, and Digital Reef.   But coming up fast are eTERA Consulting , CentralCentral, Nuix and Orange Legal Technologies. 

We recently profiled Recommind (click here).  We had extensive interviews with Digital Reef, eTERA, Nuix and Orange Legal Technologies at the Masters Conference, and we interviewed CaseCentral at the ACC annual meeting.  Those interviews will post this week in our ACC follow-ups and our special post on ECA.

The key in all of these attempted solutions is:  start with ECA and extend through analysis, review, production and post-production re-use.  Oh, and at a price point that changes the current ECA pricing model.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves.  Given the size of the e-discovery market, and given the history “first movers” in the technology industry, there is going to be plenty of room for additional players and several next generations of integrated ECA before the eventual market leaders emerge.

Last week saw one of the most successful Masters Conferences (click here).  The Masters conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle. 

It is a daunting task for any corporation to organize and launch a program of this magnitude.  Luckily they have Sasha Hefler, President of the Masters Conference (click here) whose  many endeavors included placing appropriate speakers and providing an advanced level of educational programming.  The Masters Conference is known for its unique and relevant content in the realm of risk and e-discovery.  Sasha Hefler stays ahead of the curve with Masters being on the leading edge of the legal industry.

We caught up with Sasha at the conference:

TPL:   You have created a pretty elite conference in a very short period of time.

SH:  I am proud to say that in just four years the Masters Conference has developed into the pre-eminent legal educational and networking events.  This year our theme was “Global Corporate Change – Navigating through Discovery, Risk and Security” wherein we focused on how corporations can protect themselves against the risks associated with high-profile scandals, security breaches, IP threats, increased litigation, audits and regulatory investigations.

TPL: It was an incredible success.  You attracted Sprint Nextel, DHL counsel, Home Depot, Intel, Samsung and counsel for XO communications.  as speakers and participants.  Why do you think Masters Conference has become an elite addition to the legal space? 

SH:   Masters has taken an out of the box approach to programming while keeping its standards the highest in the legal conference industry. This has set Masters  apart as a unique educational experience. 

TPL:   But its success is really due to your concept of building a unique brand in the legal market, yes?

SH:  Yes.  I have a “Build a Brand” philosophy.  At the Masters Conference I believe one of our keys to building a successful brand (and thus a successful conference) is by establishing strong relationships with key people within the industry and building upon those relationships through networking, loyalty …  and giving back-not just taking.  It is a business minded approach involving balance between fairness and toughness.

TPL:   The global emphasis to the conference this year was incredible.  We attended fabulous presentations on international disclosure and privacy, international compliance and risk, best practices for cross-border discovery, and cross border and data breach investigations.  The U.S./UK judicial panel was especially informative.

SH:   The conference was a pleasure to deliver and I am happy that you found it to be a unique educational experience.  Oour purpose was fulfilled this year.  And I agree, the US/UK judicial panel on e-discovery presented the best thinkers from both sides of the  Atlantic talking about the differences, the commonality, and what each can learn from the other in this changing area.  They provided a wealth of experience.

TPL:  Where do you see the future of the conference?

SH:  Although increasingly global in substance, we will see a continuing move toward smaller spaces and facilities, and more intimate environments affording greater opportunity for networking and relationship building. These intimate venues give attendees the unique opportunity to speak with providers that offer products and services as well as interact with the educators, speakers, and attendees on a one-on-level.

TPL:   What’s on deck for next year?

SH:  Masters will continue to build on the international issues discussed this year while covering relevant cutting edge legal trends.  Look for strategic participation from LG Electronics and the Eli Lilley corporation in 2010. 

TPL:   Many thanks for taking this time to chat with us, and many thanks for helping The Posse List at the conference.

SH:  My pleasure.

John Tredennick is the founder and CEO of Catalyst Repository Systems, which provides secure, web-based software to help corporations and their counsel manage electronic discovery and work together on complex legal and regulatory matters. Founded in 2000, the company has grown to over 100 people located in major cities across the U.S. and abroad.

Catalyst provides one of the leading multi-language document review systems, Catalyst CR (click here). It has gained significant market share in the past few years and is often requested by corporations and law firms due to its many options, easy scalability and multi-language capabilities. Catalyst was the first software in our “live” software certification program which we launched in D.C.  (click here).  Catalyst and The Posse List will be rolling out this live certification program in several cities, along with a parallel certification webinars for those that cannot attend the live certification programs. 

We caught up with John at Masters Conference:

TPL:     John, you are widely recognized as a legal technology pioneer.  You have  played a large role on the education side of this industry, something we wanted to focus on today.

JT:        Thank you for that. I am a frustrated teacher I guess.

TPL:     And some honors, as we recall.

JT:        A few perhaps. But they are merely a reflection of the great team I get to work with. The first thing you learn is business is that you are not a “solo” practitioner.

TPL:     Ok, enough said.  What did you do before you founded Catalyst?

JT:        I was a trial lawyer and litigation partner with Holland & Hart in Denver. It is the largest and best law firm in the Rocky Mountains in my humble opinion and I spent many great years there.

TPL:     You’ve actually taken this one-step further, bringing e-discovery to the law schools.

JT:        Well, not me. But a lot of other good people have taken the lead on this like the Sedona Conference, and visionary Magistrate Judges like John Facciola and Paul Grimm.  Lawyers don’t learn much—if anything—about electronic discovery in law school. The focus hasn’t changed from when I went to law school 30 years ago.  Professors focus on the “legal” issues and leave the practical topics to the students to learn on their own. I understand their thinking, but there is no reason that a great law school can’t cover both sides of the equation.

My friends Ralph Losey and Bill Hamilton have been teaching a great course at the University of Florida for years. I understand Georgetown Law School also has a great program as does the University of Richmond. They have a great journal as well. I don’t follow law school education that closely but I am sure there are a few, but only a few, others offering similar programs.

That needs to change. Electronic discovery has become one of the largest litigation expenses for law firms and companies.  Lawyers and litigation support professionals need to be prepared to handle the wide-rangy and often tricky issues associated with electronic discovery and that education should start as early as possible.  

I was excited to learn that the Sedona Conference has launched a student outreach program. The place to start teaching the art of electronic discovery is in the classroom.

TPL:     And you have done this by going back to your alma mater, the University of Virginia.  But your program is much more intense, much more comprehensive, yes?

JT:        I don’t know about that, but it is a lot of fun. The course is a “short course” and runs for two weeks. The students get an hour of credit and will have to earn every bit of it. Along with daily classes, they will have to form teams and work a TREC (Text REtrieval Conference) problem based on the Enron documents. Then they can choose between an exam or a paper.

The course explores how the current information explosion is transforming the civil litigation and regulatory process both in the United States and around the world. We examine developing case law and standards on electronic discovery and address the practical problems and issues which arise in the preservation, collection, searching, processing and production of electronic data. The course also provides an introduction to technologies, tools, and software currently used. 

We are covering such topics as data preservation and disclosure obligations under the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the data destruction safe harbor provisions, the preservation of attorney-client privilege, etc., etc.  [Note to readers:  you can find details of the entire program by clicking here]

And I try to make it fun.  Judge Facciola has come and shared his perspective on the kinds of issues he faces every day. We had two leading forensic experts, Sharon Nelson and John Simek talk about data collection and destruction. We have two leading trial lawyers, John Rosenthal and Chris Ohly, coming to talk about electronic discovery in multi-national cases.  We follow that with Amir Milo or Equivio and Professor Michael Berry of the University of Tennessee. Both will talk about and show powerful analytical tools used to organize large document collections.

We close with a presentation by Richard Kershaw of LECG. He flies in from Hong Kong to speak about data privacy and collection issues in Asia and the EU.  All in all, it was a lot of work to get organized but it has been a lot of fun and I have learned as much as the students from these great people. And for two weeks they even call me professor.

TPL:     John, thanks for your time. We regret it was so short.  I hope we can follow-up with you in the near future.

JT:        My pleasure.  Thank you for all you do to organize and support a vital part of our business—the independent reviewers.

Guidance Software, a sponsor of The Masters Conference, issued a press release today announcing the launch of their new Professional Services offering, the Guidance Software Advisory Program (GAP) which is designed to help create and refine business processes and incorporate industry best practices around e-discovery, digital forensics, cybersecurity, and other digital investigations.  The press release is attached.  We interviewed Patrick Burke, Senior Director and Assistant General Counsel at Guidance Software, last week at IQPC Brussels and he is at Masters Conference moderating tomorrow’s US-UK judicial panel on e-discovery.

Many Posse List members especially contract attorneys are involved in, or seeking to become involved in, digital forensics and cybersecurity by leveraging their e-discovery experience.   The 800-pound gorilla of digital forensics is Guidance Software which pretty much “invented” digital forensics.  Their EnCase platform first came out in 1998 and provides a foundation for organizations to conduct computer investigations of any kind, such as responding to e-discovery requests as well as conducting internal investigations, responding to regulatory inquiries or performing data and compliance auditing.  

Digital forensics tools are intended to help security staff, law enforcement and legal investigators identify, collect, preserve and examine data on computer hard drives related to inappropriate and illegal activity, such as cybercrime, e-mail and Internet abuse, fraud, financial mismanagement, unauthorized disclosure of corporate information, intellectual property theft, and so on.

Increasingly, these tools are also being applied to e-discovery efforts related to civil litigation and regulatory compliance.  

Digital forensics tools generally provide three main capabilities:

1.  Acquisition/collection/preservation: Make a sector-by-sector copy of the hard drive and run checks against those images to verify it’s an exact copy of the original.

2.  Search/analysis: Identify, analyze and keyword-search all relevant data, including deleted, encrypted, hidden, protected and temporary files, as well as virtual memory, application settings, printer spools, etc. Some packages can also detect which Web ports are open and which processes are running.

3.  Reporting: Create a detailed report, including a full audit log. This can help address compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulations.

E-discovery is not forensics.  But the steps involved with forensics work are actually subsets of the e-discovery process, as defined by the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM).  The EDRM defines forensics as encompassing identification, preservation and collection — three steps of its overall model, which also includes information management, review, analysis, production and presentation.   

Obviously cyber security is growing in importance due in large part to the way the Internet has become an essential part of our daily life and the fact that modern computing power lowers the entry barriers while it increases the number of malicious actors. Because cyber activity has become such an integral part of our operating environment, corporations have developed cyber security programs that integrate governance, strategy, policy, compliance, resilience, privacy, information life-cycle management, e-discovery, and technical assessment considerations all into one strategy process.  It is a continuing trend (and job path) as we have posted numerous times before.

EDRM advancements reflect two years of collaboration, refinement and modeling amongst e-discovery service providers, law firms, corporate practitioners and individual contributors

ST. PAUL, Minn. – October 13, 2009 – The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) project today announced that it is now easier for users to find the valuable research and standards created by the leading e-discovery industry group via a completely re-designed website, www.edrm.net. In addition, the EDRM leaders, Tom Gelbmann and George Socha, have provided updates to all of the working projects in advance of the mid-year meeting, which is being held from Oct. 20-21, 2009, in St. Paul, Minn.

“Great strides have been taken to flesh out and further define the EDRM model,” said George Socha, co-founder of the EDRM project and principal of Socha Consulting. “We’re extremely proud of the progress made by each of our project teams. Our updated website reflects two years worth of collaboration, refinement, modeling and features.”

Advancements made by the eight EDRM projects in 2009, to date, include the following:

• Evergreen (launched 2007): The Evergreen working group has put together a Production Pack ‘n Go PowerPoint presentation, which steps through the stages of the production process. Posted in early 2009, that presentation and additional Evergreen materials are available at http://edrm.net/activities/projects/evergreen
• XML (2006): The XML group has developed an XML schema that can be used, and is being used, as a replacement for the multitude of proprietary load file formats out there today. With version 1.0 of the schema released in January 2008, EDRM is now working on refinements to version 1.1 and has begun the planning process for version 2.x. Twenty software  and service providers have passed the compliance self-test to become EDRM XML certified. For XML materials, go to http://edrm.net/activities/projects/xml
• Metrics (2006): After three years of hard work, the Metrics group has developed an extensive set of codes designed to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with e-discovery activities. Version 1.0 of the codes is scheduled to be released in Q4 2009. The draft set can be seen at http://edrm.net/resources/standards/edrm-metrics-code-set
• Model Code of Conduct (2007): A draft Model Code of Conduct, which provides recommended guidelines for software and services providers (akin to those under which attorneys, court personnel and others in the legal space must operate) is now available at: http://edrm.net/resources/guidelines/edrm-model-code-of-conduct
• Search (2008): The EDRM Search Project, aimed at providing a framework for defining and managing search specifications for culling and review, released version 1.14 of the draft EDRM Search Guide in February 2009. The group currently is working on version 1.17 of the Search Guide, available at http://edrm.net/resources/guidelines/edrm-search-guide, and has begun development of an accompanying XML schema.
• Data Set (2008): The EDRM Data Set Project has compiled more than 60 gigabytes of data that can be used to test various aspects of electronic discovery software and services. The data set foreign language data from 23 different countries, emails with attachments (including .pst files), file format data from 200 different file types, and a file list with over 13,000 extensions. The group is currently testing the compiled data as well as distribution processes. More information on these efforts can be found at: http://edrm.net/activities/projects/data-set
• Jobs (2009): An initial process flow diagram outlining a means to identify, assess, advocate for, recruit, on-board and retain the appropriate level of professional resources process has been drafted. The group is working on developing a second level flow and related content. More information can be found at: http://edrm.net/activities/projects/jobs
• Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) (2009): The Information Management Reference Model Project has organized into six working groups, each focused on gathering input from a wide variety of organizations and experts, including analyst firms, corporations, electronic content management (ECM) vendors, healthcare organizations, industry trade associations, and standards and certification groups. The project seeks to facilitate dialogue among legal, IT, records management, line-of-business and other stakeholders by providing a common language and reference for discussion and decision-making based on the needs of the organization. For more information, visit http://edrm.net/activities/projects/infomation-management-reference-model

 Open invitation

Corporations, law firms, e-discovery vendors and individual thought leaders are invited to participate in the EDRM project and any of the working teams. The cost to participate is based on the type and size of the organization, as well as the number of projects in which the organization chooses to participate. Individuals are also welcome to participate for a fee; however, the fee is currently being waived for those who have been laid off and are currently unemployed.

About EDRM

Launched in May 2005, the EDRM project was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market – a problem identified in the 2003 and 2004 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery surveys as a major concern for vendors and consumers alike. The completed reference model provides a common, flexible and extensible framework for the development, selection, evaluation and use of electronic discovery products and services. Expanding on the base defined with the Reference Model, the EDRM projects were expanded in May 2006 to include the EDRM Metrics and the EDRM XML projects. Over the past four years, the EDRM project has comprised more than 170 organizations, including 115 service and software providers, 43 law firms, three industry groups and 12 corporations involved with e-discovery. Information about the EDRM project is available at http://edrm.net.

Press contacts:

 George Socha   Socha Consulting    651.690.1739   pr@edrm.net

Tom Gelbmann  Gelbmann & Associates  651-483-0022  pr@edrm.net

The Masters Conference starts tomorrow in Washington, DC and runs for two days (click here).   A number of presenters are already in D.C., as well as a number of vendors, so we have been able to begin our coverage.  One of them is DC-based eTERA Consulting.

With the continued growth and expansion of eTERA Consulting, the company has recently hired project managers and senior case consultants. Joe Kanka, Vice President of Corporate Development, told The Posse List in a an interview that “eTERA Consulting continues to look at the contract attorney marketplace in order to identify and attract new talent that fits our business model.”  In addition, eTERA Consulting is anticipating the staffing of upcoming document review projects for its clients.  “Our ability to tap into the contract labor pool allows us to provide the flexible staffing solutions that clients require from us,” said Kanka.   eTERA Consulting is an example of the trend we have reported :  the march of EDD vendors into document review, moving into the “right side” of the EDRM and thereby moving into all aspects of the model, as corporations turn to these companies to secure more ownership over the entire e-discovery process to enhance control and reduce costs. 

eTERA Consulting also recently announced that it has teamed up with the law firm of Sheppard Mullin in order to provide a series of CLE Corporate Briefing Seminars discussing antitrust enforcement and emerging legal issues under the Obama Administration. The first Corporate Briefing Seminar will be held in November will focus on Managing a Cartel Investigation. The seminar series will cover a wide range of legal, case management and electronic discovery issues that corporate counsel must manage.

The Masters Conference (click here) will be held on October 13th and 14th in Washington, DC.  The Masters conference brings together leading experts and professionals from law firms, corporations and the bench to develop strategies, practices and resources for managing the information life cycle.

The theme for this year’s conference, “Global Corporate Change – Navigating through Discovery, Risk and Security,” focuses on how corporations can protect themselves against the risks associated with high-profile scandals, security breaches, IP threats, increased litigation, audits and regulatory investigations.

The Conference was created in 2006 to provide an opportunity for advanced practical education for corporate counsel and law firms.  Its mission is to have speakers, product and service providers, and attendees work together:

*  The speakers, leaders in their fields, provide education on the issues and how they translate into practice.

*  The providers develop solutions to fit the needs arising from corporate records management and litigation.

*   The attendees contribute real-world experience.

To make this work, the conference is smaller and more intimate than many of the other conferences in the industry. The organizers strive to create interactive sessions where the speakers interact with the attendees.   There is also a easier opportunity to speak with providers that offer clients their products and services that meet their needs, and for providers to have an opportunity to interact with the educators, speakers, and attendees. 

We have expanded our coverage of these conferences (LegalTech, ILTA, the ILSL, the IQPC series, etc.) to provide information for our diverse membership: contract attorneys, law firms, corporations, e-discovery vendors, bar associations, legal media, etc.

But our focus is on the growing opportunities for our core membership (contract attorneys and temporary attorneys) so they know the ins-and-outs of electronically stored information (ESI) because:

1.  e-discovery vendors continue to move into the “right-side” of the EDRM, picking up document review and production; and

2.  corporations continue their trend to by-pass law firms and go directly to these e-discovery vendors to manage their ESI needs as companies, desperate to save a buck or two, secure more ownership over the e-discovery process to enhance control and reduce costs.  Leveraging in-house technologies and deploying early case assessment methodologies results in data reduction strategies.

It  means opportunities for Posse List members beyond the “click click click” of document review as demonstrated by a growing number of e-discovery vendors, in-house legal departments, and other entities who have posted projects and positions on our job lists that seek a well-founded e-discovery background.  It is a trend we have cited with by such reports as those from the Sapire Search Group and Rees Morrison.

So we cover these conferences, and we continue to expand our Electronic Discovery Reading Room (click here) to provide as many “primers” and background briefs as we can on ESI management and e-discovery.

And all of this segues into the area of governance, risk and compliance (GRC).  This is not a “new new thing” and has been chronicled for well over the last year and half.  This convergence of e-discovery and GRC technology and management is reshaping the industry.  It the major focus at this year’s Masters Conference.

A special thank you note:  It is a daunting task for any organization to organize and launch a program of this magnitude.  Luckily they have Sasha Hefler, President of the Masters Conference (click here) who is responsible for a million things including: the list of speakers and subjects; press releases; event sponsorships; public relations; webinars; testimonials; interviews; white papers, etc., etc.   

And despite this awesome “to do” list she has gone beyond the call of duty to help The Posse List.  We are fielding 3 staff members and several bloggers at the conference and she has found time to process our registrations and provide all the back-up material we requested on speakers and vendors, etc.

We’ll have a chance to interview Sasha during the conference.  For now, some of the sessions we expect to cover to give you a flavor of the conference:

When Good Faith is not Good Enough

The global economic crisis is making its mark: a rising tide of corporate litigation, consolidations and mergers, and some of the century’s most sweeping changes to corporate governance. Regulators are promising hard hitting new rules and hefty sanctions impacting all sectors. Boards of directors, customers, courts and regulators are taking notice and demanding action.   As legal departments and their IT brethren are struggling to bring information governance and eDiscovery in line with tightening rules and regulations, the exponential growth of geographically dispersed information from a raft of data sources presents them with a daunting challenge. Traditional policies and methods for governance and discovery of electronically stored information are falling short, yet organizations must comply or risk fines and sanctions that put shareholder value, public confidence and brand integrity at risk.  The legal and regulatory environment surrounding information governance is evolving in three phases. This panel will discuss the opportunities and risks affecting legal and compliance officers, trends in case law and rules, and best practices for managing the disciplines of information governance and discovery through the evolution.

E-Discovery: Why Most Enterprise Implementations Fail to Make the Grade

It takes just 10,000 employees to generate more electronic documents in a year than is contained in the entire Library of Congress. It is easy to see how archiving e-mail and files for large enterprises can be a daunting challenge. This session cuts through the vendors’ marketing brochures to identify the real problems, formulate the hard questions to ask vendors and outline ways to evaluate and compare solutions to fit your needs. Armed with this knowledge, your chances of implementation success can be significantly improved.

Early Case Assessment: Looking to the Future – From Early Assessment to Early Awareness

ECA technology is poised to radically change how companies approach e-Discovery.  However, those who view ECA as only a cost-saving solution for eDiscovery have taken too narrow a view of its application. The distinguishing capability of ECA — rapid search & intelligent classification of vast information stores — when combined with effective processes, will enable corporations to adopt innovative strategies focused on discovery, data privacy, data loss, general records & information management as well as cost reduction.

Enabling Transformative Technologies – The Science &Engineering and the Law

The law has not caught up with emerging technology development modalities, with costly consequences.  Changing this state of affairs requires better understanding of how transformational technology advancements will be enabled,  to anticipate such trends and create the appropriate legal infrastructure.  This lecture will focus on better understanding how the two major recent trends of globalization and the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of technological innovation require for more synergistic partnerships between industry and academe.  The efforts to solve the most challenging problems facing us –whether related to energy (oil, nuclear, solar, wind), critical infrastructure systems (electrical power grids, transportation systems), homeland security, global communication systems, etc — would benefit from such interactions.  Topics covered will include emerging scientific, technological and policy directions; guiding principles; types of interaction and collaboration; opportunities, constraints and expected outcomes.  There will also be an assessment of new processes and frameworks catalyzed through government involvement.  All lawyers can better counsel their clients, particularly in industry, when they have a good understanding of where technology and technology development modalities are heading, and how such trends can be advantageously leveraged.

E-discovery Evolution and Revolution: an Early Case Assessment Movement

The high cost of traditional e-discovery methods and the economic downturn have made it difficult on the corporate counsel and IT staff of enterprise organizations when they respond to legal discovery requests. The costs associated with gathering and processing electronically stored information and ensuring that the complete set of evidence is included in the response to a discovery request have become significant  problems for many organizations.  This has led many in these organizations to question the validity of the historical approach of collecting everything associated with a presumed set of custodians and sending all that data out for processing. The IT manager and the corporate legal department are both being asked if there is a better way to identify the relevant ESI for given matters and to produce it locally (inside the corporate security perimeter), sending smaller more relevant sets out for eventual attorney review. This panel discussion will focus on new Early Case Assessment (ECA) approaches that can be taken within the corporate security perimeter to produce the relevant material for litigation matters without incurring high discovery and review costs associated with the “over-collection and processing” problem encountered when only outside vendors are used. Proactive methods for discovering content rapidly and identifying irrelevant content that need not be produced will be discussed.

Beyond E-mail:  Legal and Practical Implications of 21st Century ESI

Just when lawyers have become comfortable advising clients about how to handle traditional forms of ESI under the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, new media has emerged that present increasingly complicated and far-reaching strategic and practical challenges.  E-discovery is no longer just about email, electronic documents and databases located on company servers.  Instead, law and technology intersect over dynamic ESI, often times stored beyond the direct control of the user.  Applications that foster social communication (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and the various software supporting blog publications) and multimedia sharing portals (YouTube, Flickr, Picasa) qualify as ESI under Rule 34.  And it’s not just tech-savvy individuals making use of new media.  Businesses are using web-based project management tools (Basecamp, EtherPad), social enterprise software (Jive, Socialtext), and cloud computing (GoogleApps) along with digital voicemail, IM and off-site data archiving to facilitate productivity and reduce corporate expenditures. On top of all that, we are on the verge a revolution in e-mail technology that will change the game completely… again!   In litigation, how should lawyers approach collection, preservation, processing, review and production of 21st century media?  What sources must parties disclose in discovery?  Is new media the next treasure-trove of discoverable potentially relevant information in terms of both tangible data and facts?

Litigation Readiness and the Left Side of the EDRM Model – Decreasing Discovery Cost and Risk

Document review can account for more than 70% of the total cost of e-discovery.  This panel will discuss reducing the cost of e-discovery and document review by focusing on litigation readiness and the strategic application of technology early in the process in order to reduce the size of the electronic evidence corpus.

Driving Down Electronic Discovery Costs:  The Challenge of Bringing Electronic Discovery Inside the Corporation

Corporations are striving to reduce overall litigation costs by assuming control over not only the decision making, but the harvesting and processing of electronic data.  Decision makers must take into account not only technology purchases, but process protocols and talent to function successfully as the environment changes.  Attendees will engage in a frank discussion among industry peers, learning the pitfalls and opportunities of bringing more and more inside the corporate infrastructure.  Attend this session to hear the panelists discuss which comes first, technology, process or people? 

US-UK Judicial Panel on E-Discovery

Although the US leads the world in both the legal and technical aspects of electronic discovery, there is a general acceptance that there is much to do to make this aspect of litigation an efficient and cost-effective component of case management. Although the essential difficulties are the same in England and Wales, the approach taken is a slightly different one, and there is growing recognition that the two jurisdictions have something to learn from each other.
 
Chief US Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm and US Magistrate Judge John Facciola are the undisputed leaders of judicial thought in this area in the US. Their counterparts in the UK are Senior Master Whitaker and His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC. These four were brought together, with Chris Dale of the UK based e-Disclosure Information Project, at a successful panel in London in May 2009, moderated by Patrick Burke, Assistant General Counsel at Guidance Software. The Masters Conference is reconstituting the panel and you will have the opportunity to hear the best thinkers from both sides of the Atlantic talking about the differences, the commonality, and what each can learn from the other in this changing area.

We will have full coverage including posts and interviews.  Please bookmark this page.