School « e-Discovery Team

School

Einstein at a blackboard This Page contains a collection of writings originally written for this blog on e-discovery education. This is an important subject to the future of discovery in America and so I wanted to make it easy to find all of these writings on one page. I have had several experts in this field make contributions whose work you will see here, including Judge Scheindlin, William Hamilton, a shareholder of Holland & Knight and an Adjunct Professor of Law at UF (as am I, we frequently co-teach classes), and Shannon Capone Kirk of Ropes & Gray.

The education specific blogs you will find in these sub-pages are:

Plato’s Cave: why most lawyers love paper and hate e-discovery and what this means to the future of legal education, August 11, 2009.

Judge Shira Scheindlin and I Speak on e-Discovery and Education, March 23, 2009.

Fresh Perspectives on e-Discovery from Young Minds in the “Academy“, December 21, 2008.

“Teach Your Children Well” – A Case for Teaching E-Discovery in Law Schools, November 23, 2008; Guest Blog by Shannon Capone Kirk and Kristin G. Ali.

The E-Discovery Crisis: An Immediate Challenge to our Nation’s Law Schools, November 5, 2008; Guest Blog by William Hamilton.

About the Blogger

Ralph Losey is the lawyer, writer and educator behind the e-Discovery Team blog. Ralph has been practicing law since 1980 and playing with computers and cyber-communications since 1978. He is a shareholder at Akerman Senterfitt, holds the highest AV peer rating by Martindale Hubbell, and is identified as a SuperLawyer in the field of IT. Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, a media-tech, and Adam Losey, a lawyer, and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a therapist in Winter Park.

TEAM MISSION STATEMENT

1. Assist companies routinely involved in litigation to establish an e-discovery readiness team. The recommended team includes designated in-house legal counsel, IT, records, and business management, and, where needed, the best e-discovery vendors and experts in the field. Our attorneys, technicians and other specialists help form, train and coach the team, but the client remains team owner and captain.

2. Meet with IT personnel and fully understand their data architecture and record retention practices, and then advocate and explain their position in the litigation process, appearing in court as co-counsel of record when necessary.

3. Guide in the creation and implementation of new systems to maintain records, preserve evidence, and timely respond to electronic discovery.

4. Provide high quality and consistent legal representation on e-discovery issues around the country, and work closely with local counsel, clients, and the courts to minimize costs and unnecessary disputes.

Sedona Principles, 2nd Ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.

2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.

3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.

4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.

6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.

9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.

11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.

12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.

13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.

14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.

Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.

Go to www.thesedonaconference.org to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.

HOW MUCH DATA DO YOU HAVE?

CD = 650 MB = 50,000 pages. DVD = 4.7 GB = 350,000 pages. DLT Tape = 40/80 GB = 3 to 6 Million pages.
Super DLT Tape = 60/120 GB = 4 to 9 Million pages.

***************************
Page Estimates:
1 MB is about 75 pages;
1 GB is about 75,000 pages (pick-up truck full of documents).

Aver. pgs. per email: 1.5 (100,099 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per word document: 8 (64,782 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per spreadsheet: 50 (165,791 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per power point: 14 (17,552 pages per GB).

***************************
For the average .PST or .NSF Email File:
100 MB .PST file is 900 emails and 300 attachments.
400 MB .PST file is 3,500 emails and 1,200 attachments.
600 MB .PST file is 5,500 emails and 1,600 attachments.
A 1.00 GB .NSF file is 9,000 emails and 3,000 attachments.
A 1.5 GB .NSF file is 13,500 emails and 4,500 attachments.

***************************
Note: Many variables will affect ALL of the actual numbers above, including especially large image and video files, and recursive files.

***************************
Bits and Bytes Sizes:
•8 bits are equal to 1 byte (one or two words),
•1,024 bytes are equal to 1 kilobyte (KB).
•1,024 kilobytes (KB) are equal to 1 megabyte (MB or Meg).
•1,024 megabytes are equal to 1 gigabyte (GB or Gig) (truck full of paper).
•1,024 gigabytes are equal to 1 terabyte (TB) (50,000 trees of paper).
•1,024 terabytes are equal to 1 petabyte (PB) (250 Billion Pgs. of Text).
•1,024 petabytes are equal to 1 exabytes (EB) (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes).

	Cooperation and the … on A Supreme Court Justice Writes…
	Daryl Dujon on The E-Discovery Crisis: An Imm…
	rockey16 on Supreme Court Agrees to Hear a…
	Ralph Losey on What is e-Discovery?

e-Discovery Team

School

Leave a Reply

About the Blogger

Forthcoming & Recent Books

Law Review Articles

Recent Interviews

Related Legal Webs

Ralph’s Twitters on Tech

Recent Blog Comments

Blog Stats

Permanent Pages

TEAM MISSION STATEMENT

Sedona Principles, 2nd Ed.

HOW MUCH DATA DO YOU HAVE?

Past Blogs

Search for the Golden Needle

BLOGGING MUSIC