<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases &#8211; Part Two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/</link>
	<description>Blog by Ralph Losey on the team approach to electronic discovery combining the talents of Law, IT, and Science.  The views expressed are Ralph&#039;s own, and not necessarily those of his law firm, clients or University. © Ralph Losey 2006-2013.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 03:46:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bottom Line Driven Proportional Review (2013 Updated Version) &#124; e-Discovery Team ®</title>
		<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/#comment-47844</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bottom Line Driven Proportional Review (2013 Updated Version) &#124; e-Discovery Team ®]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-discoveryteam.com/?p=17524#comment-47844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The amount selected for the budget should be proportional to the monies and issues in the case. Any more than that is unduly burdensome and prohibited under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other rules that underlie what is now generally known as the Proportionality Principle. See Rule 1, Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Rule 26(b)(2)(B), and Rule 26(g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, 11 SEDONA CONF. J. 289 (2010); Oot, Kershaw &amp; Roitblat, Mandating Reasonableness in a Reasonable Inquiry, Denver University Law Review, 87:2, 522-559 (2010); also see Rule 403 of the Federal Evidence Code (inadmissibility of cumulative evidence). For a larger collection of authorities  including numerous cases applying proportionality in e-discovery, see Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The amount selected for the budget should be proportional to the monies and issues in the case. Any more than that is unduly burdensome and prohibited under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other rules that underlie what is now generally known as the Proportionality Principle. See Rule 1, Rule 26(b)(2)(C), Rule 26(b)(2)(B), and Rule 26(g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, 11 SEDONA CONF. J. 289 (2010); Oot, Kershaw &amp; Roitblat, Mandating Reasonableness in a Reasonable Inquiry, Denver University Law Review, 87:2, 522-559 (2010); also see Rule 403 of the Federal Evidence Code (inadmissibility of cumulative evidence). For a larger collection of authorities  including numerous cases applying proportionality in e-discovery, see Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blogging, Proportional Review and Predictive Coding &#171; e-Discovery Team ®</title>
		<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/#comment-34001</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blogging, Proportional Review and Predictive Coding &#171; e-Discovery Team ®]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 18:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-discoveryteam.com/?p=17524#comment-34001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] we try to do every chance we get in every case to make sure that our production responses are proportional to the value of the case. It is my way of trying to control what I think is the primary problem in e-discovery today, and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] we try to do every chance we get in every case to make sure that our production responses are proportional to the value of the case. It is my way of trying to control what I think is the primary problem in e-discovery today, and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Random Sample Calculations And My Prediction That 300,000 Lawyers Will Be Using Random Sampling By 2022 &#171; e-Discovery Team ®</title>
		<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/#comment-33811</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Random Sample Calculations And My Prediction That 300,000 Lawyers Will Be Using Random Sampling By 2022 &#171; e-Discovery Team ®]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 01:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-discoveryteam.com/?p=17524#comment-33811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] trial exhibit list). Again, this is a question of low prevalence. So yes, we are used to that. See Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two; and, Secrets of Search article, Part Three (Relevant Is [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] trial exhibit list). Again, this is a question of low prevalence. So yes, we are used to that. See Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two; and, Secrets of Search article, Part Three (Relevant Is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#8220;Where The Money Goes&#8221; &#8211; a Report by the Rand Corporation &#171; e-Discovery Team ®</title>
		<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/#comment-33440</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[&#8220;Where The Money Goes&#8221; &#8211; a Report by the Rand Corporation &#171; e-Discovery Team ®]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-discoveryteam.com/?p=17524#comment-33440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] proportionality. See eg.: Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases, Part One and Part Two. Of course, my way is not the only way for the CAR highway. There are many other valid legal [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] proportionality. See eg.: Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases, Part One and Part Two. Of course, my way is not the only way for the CAR highway. There are many other valid legal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Links (weekly) &#124; The Many Faces of Mike McBride</title>
		<link>http://e-discoveryteam.com/2012/04/15/good-better-best-a-tale-of-three-proportionality-cases-part-two/#comment-33437</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Links (weekly) &#124; The Many Faces of Mike McBride]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://e-discoveryteam.com/?p=17524#comment-33437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two « e-Discovery Team ® [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Good, Better, Best: a Tale of Three Proportionality Cases – Part Two « e-Discovery Team ® [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
