Falling Back to a Mid-Year Electronic Discovery Update

Falling Back to a Mid-Year Electronic Discovery Update

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 Playbooks

The 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 Pharm 

BYOD 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. Hofioni

Social 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.

Share this entry


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

LLM unifies the legal process by combining legal holds, case strategy, matter and budget management, review and analytics in a single, web-based platform. We connect legal strategy to tactics in a way no one else can, so every part of the process is actionable. Our product scales to help corporate and law firm teams gain cost-savings and eliminate inefficiencies.
Send this to a friend