Autumn is officially upon us and so is Throwback Thursday. In honor of both, we fall back to this year’s thorough and thought-provoking Mid-Year Electronic Discovery Update, courtesy of the global law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
According to the must-read analysis, it’s been both an exciting yet challenging time to be involved in e-discovery. If the current trend continues, where big-data analytics and new forms of communication affect e-discovery, come 2015, the firm’s Electronic Discovery and Information Law Practice Group may consider 2014 the “year of technology” in e-discovery.
The first half of the year included a notable increase in litigants’ consideration of predictive coding; information governance and defensible deletion of unnecessary data; the emergence of new e-discovery and hosting solutions up in the cloud; the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Riley v. California, unanimously holding that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before reviewing digital information on a smartphone; an increased focus on new technologies for dealing with the challenges of e-discovery; and proposed Federal Rule Amendments, in particular, Rule 37(e).
More specifically, the in-depth analysis contains six noteworthy sections, outlined as follows:
The Great Leap Forward in E-Discovery Technology
· Powerful Data Analytics Tools Emerge · Predictive Coding Is Still in Its Early Stages · Information Governance Remains a High Priority · E-Discovery Technology Becomes Available Through the Cloud · Companies and Service Providers Change Their PlaybooksThe Messaging Revolution and E-Discovery
· Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud · Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy · Hosch v. BAE Systems Information Solutions, Inc. · In Re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prods. Liab. Litig. · In re Petition of Boehringer Ingelheim PharmBYOD and Mobile Devices
· Riley v. California · Bakhit v. Safety Marking, Inc. · Network Cargo Sys. U.S.A., Inc. v. Pappas · Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co. · U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. HofioniSocial Media
· “Maryland approach” and “Texas approach” · Parker v. State · State v. Jones · Smith v. State · United States v. Hassan · Randazza v. Cox · Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc. · Ogden v. All-State Career School · Root v. Balfour Beatty Const. LLC · Pecile v. Titan Capital Group, LLC · D.O.H. ex rel. Haddad v. Lake Central School Corp.E-Discovery Sanctions and the Duty to Preserve
· Painter v. Atwood · Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorriquena de Salud · In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig · Sleep-Tone Enter. Corp. v. Granito
Proposed FRCP E-Discovery Amendments: The Latest Chapter
· Cooperation · Proportionality · Claw Back of Privileged Documents · Limits on Depositions, Interrogatories and RFAs · Objections to Document Requests · Sanctions
As the year of technology in e-discovery winds down (or up?), the importance of seeking well-versed counsel and e-discovery industry expertise when necessary continues to grow. We’ll be sure to seek the Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s Year-End E-Discovery Update and share the in-depth analysis here. In the interim, we welcome your comments on whether 2014 is, indeed, destined to be the “year of technology” in e-discovery.
0 Comments