In a significant week for e-discovery case law, we’ve had two decisions over the past few days where these hassles have landed litigants—including an attorney—in the hot water of e-discovery sanctions proceedings.
This article originally appeared on Law360.
In our daily work lives, we see a fair amount of anecdotal evidence indicating many of us engage in workplace behaviors that put our personal privacy and company data at risk.
But, how serious is the problem?
To find out, kCura recently commissioned a Harris Poll survey conducted between December 28, 2016, and January 18, 2017, included 1,013 U.S. adults age 18 and over who were employed full-time or part-time, working in a traditional office setting for at least 50 percent of the time (referred to as “employees” throughout) to get a better idea of just what employee behaviors may be putting corporate enterprises—and themselves—at risk.
With our London event growing to become the largest e-disclosure conference in the UK, as well as undergoing a transformation into Relativity Fest London this year, we thought it was time to roll it into our bigger e-discovery conference tradition: sharing our favorite quotes from the speakers (and live-tweeters) after the event.
Read through the notable highlights below, and let us know what stood out to you in the comments or @RelativityFest on Twitter.
During the debates over the 2015 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the biggest points of contention was the change in the sanctions provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
However, as we’ve discussed before, judges have methods other than Rule 37(e) to sanction bad behavior in discovery. In addition to tools such as Rule 37(b)(2), federal judges can sanction parties under their so-called “inherent authority.”
March Madness has become an American tradition. Approximately 350 million people discuss it on social media during the month of March, and it generated a broadcasting rights deal of an estimated $8.8 billion in 2016.
But what exactly is March Madness?
If you said it’s the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Men’s Division I Basketball Championship, most people would agree with you.
The legal issue is usually data privacy and protection—but not always.
When Below v. Yokohama Tires Corp., goes to trial Monday, March 6, it should serve as a cautionary tale for e-discovery counsel and legal technology teams. When we think of collecting electronically stored information (ESI), email, texts, social media, or data centers often come to mind.
As we discussed at Legalweek’s Legaltech 2017, e-discovery has been a crucial part of complex commercial litigation, but it hasn’t been a traditional priority in criminal matters.
Times are changing.
With the proliferation of digital data, e-discovery is not only becoming more of an issue in criminal matters—it’s sometimes becoming just as important as it is in civil litigation.
As always, we covered many of the sessions, and you can find archives of our live tweet coverage here.
To give you an even quicker read and a feel for the law, technology, and humor that is Legaltech, we continue our tradition of bringing you The Best of Legaltech: Our Favorite Quotes from the Speakers.
Editor's note: this article originally appeared in Legaltech News.
One could argue that 2016 was the year e-discovery started “trending,” with a certain presidential candidate’s emails dominating the news cycle for much of the second half of the year. But the limelight wasn’t the only notable thing about e-discovery this year—new technologies, several high-profile cases, and notable mergers and acquisitions have left many of us wondering what’s next.
As we embark on new adventures in 2017, we talked with members of the profession and the industry about what they think is on the horizon and gathered seven predictions—five things we’ll expect to see in 2017, and two things we won’t.
However, by the following morning, Collins was dead and Bates was in the crosshairs of a police investigation. The Bates home being somewhat typical in the era of the Internet of Things, it included a device known as an electronic home assistant. Thus, a fundamental legal question soon arose: is it lawful for police to seize and examine data from an Amazon Echo?