Oct 30, 2014 · An eDiscovery managed services partnership can enable a litigant to offload discovery management operations and systems to a dedicated eDiscovery vendor, who then assumes an ongoing responsibility for hosting and supporting that organization’s data through multiple years and matters. The advantages of this partnership can include:
If you need to get up to speed on eDiscovery, Logikcull’s Ultimate Guide to eDiscovery is an excellent starting point. It covers everything from basic terms to an explanation of predictive coding and other more current forms of technology assisted review of ESI. 2. Know that everything is discoverable.
Predictive coding is defensible, courts are accepting it, and Foley is leveraging this technology to control eDiscovery costs while providing high-quality, defensible reviews. We offer this predictive coding solution — known as Relativity Assisted Review — at no additional cost to clients.
May 05, 2021 · Communications between lawyers and outside consultants, such as cybersecurity incident response teams and e-discovery vendors, are largely protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but may also be protected by the attorney-client privilege and court rules preventing the disclosure of communications with non-testifying consultants.
Metadata, or data about data, is also important to consider during the eDiscovery process. It can be used to organize information to make it easier to review large volumes of ESI. As Andy explains:
When working with ESI during the eDiscovery process, it’s important to operate in a way that doesn’t impact your data—but for many legal professionals, that’s easier said than done. As Andy explains:
states have adopted the duty of technology competence, meaning that lawyers must “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” In other words, keeping abreast of changes of the law and its practice includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology. If you haven’t kept yourself up to date on how the latest technology can help you run processes like eDiscovery in the most efficient and secure way, you could be taking a risk.
Keeping data secure during the discovery process isn’t as simple as one might think. Transferring ESI between parties, or even storing ESI during the discovery process, can put data at risk if it isn’t done carefully. Andy explains:
A person who is an eDiscovery Administrator in your organization (a member of the eDiscovery Administrator subgroup in the eDiscovery Manager role group) must make the model available in your Advanced eDiscovery cases.
When you analyze the documents in a review set, the attorney-client privilege detection model will also run and the corresponding properties (described in How does it work? will be added to every document in the review set. For more information about analyzing data in review set, see Analyze data in a review set in Advanced eDiscovery.
If the model determines that a document doesn't contain content that is legal in nature or doesn't contain a participant from the attorney list, then neither label is displayed in the tagging panel. For example, the following screenshots show two documents.
In addition to work product protection, in certain circumstances, the attorney-client privilege may also shield communications between attorneys and third parties assisting with litigation. For instance, when the third party communicating with the attorney is the “functional equivalent” of an employee to the client, ...
Communications between lawyers and outside consultants, such as cybersecurity incident response teams and e-discovery vendors, are largely protected by the attorney work product doctrine, but may also be protected by the attorney-client privilege and court rules preventing the disclosure of communications with non-testifying consultants.
Below are six things to keep in mind to ensure the confidentiality of the communications. Make sure any agreement with litigation and e-discovery vendors acknowledges that confidential and privileged information will be exchanged during the engagement and that all parties are obligated to preserve confidentiality.
The work product doctrine generally prohibits the disclosure of a lawyer’s work performed in anticipation of litigation. Attorney work product protection is often set out in court rules such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (3) (A) and state counterparts like California Code of Civil Procedure 2018.030 and Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 26 (b) (3) . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (3) (A) provides that “ [o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) (3) (A) provides that “ [o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).”. ...
Communications between lawyers and consultants are privileged only if the primary purpose of communications relate to legal services. If a consultant is engaged for both business and legal purposes, the communications may not be privileged.
Despite the fact a lawyer’s communications with consultants, experts and vendors are third party communications, they are generally confidential or privileged, but to preserve the confidentiality of these communications, there are a few things to keep in mind.