7 Responses to Online Reference and Thirty One More e-Discovery Cases

  1. David Cowen says:

    Great Blog… I appreciate all the reference links.
    and the blog photos are hilarious….

    Like

  2. Eric Feistel says:

    Thanks Ralph. The FloridaLawFirm.com website is very well put together and the list of case references in this article provides a very nice primer for anyone looking to come up to speed on relevant cases. I also do agree with you about searching … it definitely beats hunting around on a site any day of the week.

    Like

  3. […] blog. It works very well. I need this search feature, not only because my memory is limited, buthttps://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/online-reference-and-thirty-one-more-e-discovery-cases/Lawsuit reflects broken trust Ventura County StarThe players in the sweeping fraud lawsuit filed by […]

    Like

  4. Peterk says:

    Very interesting blog however you are leaving out key member of your e-discovery team and that would be the records management team. Most if not all IT personnel have no clue about records retention. They have avoided learning about records retention and how it applies to e-records. Records management in conjunction with the legal department and the business owner of the records designs, develops and implements the records retention schedule.
    The problem with e-records and discovery is that for years IT refused to accept the fact the records retention rules applied to what they were doing.

    Like

  5. Ralph Losey says:

    I agree the RM can be, and should be, very important. In my presentations I always mention them.

    Like

  6. Laura Zubulake says:

    Thanks for recognizing my case as “[t]he most famous and important e-discovery case of all.” It was certainly a challenging period and as the key decision-maker with little precedent to follow, one during which I learned much about e-discovery. However, some of your comments are incorrect. I did not sue “after being told by a male executive that she was too “old and ugly and she can’t do the job”. In fact if you read my 2002 Complaint, that was never mentioned. I only learned about these alleged comments during discovery. I also noticed you posted one of the worst photos ever taken of me (after 3 yrs of litigation and 2 wks of trial)!!! Seriously, your readers should note my allegations included but were not limited to the denial and removal from professional responsibilities, exclusion from business outings, being belitted and generally treated different from my male colleagues. The alleged retaliation occured when I complained about the treatment. Knowing the essence of my allegations helps outsiders understand my motivations and desire to search for e-evidence. The pressures to settle were intense but I sought vindication and a favorable verdict. I always believed the electronic evidence would be supportive of my case.

    Like

  7. Laura Zubulake says:

    Thanks for amending your blog. However, the alleged old and ugly comment did not come from an email, but rather from a witness’ testimony. Frankly that comment was relatively unimportant when compared to the evidence in totality. Legal commentary should focus on the allegations of true import, not those sensationalized by those not present during trial.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: