What is an Army of One?
What does Multimodal Single-SME mean?
What is an “approach” to Machine Learning?
What other approaches are there?
What is Machine Learning anyway?
e-Discovery Team ®
Blog by Ralph Losey on the team approach to electronic discovery combining the talents of Law, IT, and Science. The views expressed are Ralph's own, and not necessarily those of his law firm, clients or University. © Ralph Losey 2006-2013.
About the Blogger
Ralph Losey is a practicing attorney and partner in a national law firm with 50+ offices and over 750 lawyers where he lead’s the firm’s Electronic Discovery practice group. Ralph is the author of five books on electronic discovery published by West Thomson, the ABA, and e-Discovery Team® LLP. He is also the founder of Electronic Discovery Best Practices, founder and CEO of e-Discovery TeamTraining, a for-profit online education program, and a co-founder of the non-profit IT-Lex foundation. Ralph has limited his legal practice to electronic discovery since 2006, with a special interest in software and the search and review of electronic evidence. Ralph has been involved with computers and the law since 1980. His full biography may be found at RalphLosey.com.
Ralph is also the proud father of two children, Eva Grossman, and Adam Losey, an e-discovery lawyer, and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.
Ralph Losey’s School
Ralph Losey’s School
Recent Blog Comments
cars on Job Market Heating Up for e-Di… Wrath of Kahn Contin… on Confessions of a Trekkie The Many Faces of Mi… on Bad Robot! Robots From The Not-… on Robot Games: the Gamification… 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.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
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.
Ralph Losey’s School
[...] as a predicate for a discussion of the next stage of the predictive coding debate. As I said in New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach, the next stage of the debate is not whether to use a CAR, or how much disclosure you should make, [...]
[...] as a predicate for a discussion of the next stage of the predictive coding debate. As I said in New Developments in Advanced Legal Search: the emergence of the “Multimodal Single-SME” approach, the next stage of the debate is not whether to use a CAR, or how much disclosure you should make, [...]