7 Responses to E-Discovery Metrics – One of the Four Pillars of e-Discovery

  1. Hi Ralph (I know the tone of your blogs well enough to address you this way, even though we’ve never met),

    Career changes … hmmm. Let me tell you briefly about mine. I’m a Caltech grad (1971) who made a career out of business litigation (34 years; AV rated) who’s now a Principal with a California regional accounting firm (main office in LA, but outposts in SD, OC, SF, Walnut Creek and Hong Kong) called Stonefield Josephson. I am leading SJ into the e-D consulting world, along with a technologist who hails from Navigant and Duff & Phelps, in part because, while the BIG law firms are onto e-D, the middle market firms are lagging. They don’t see the tsumani heading their way. They need education, especially since the California rules have not even had their first birthday. So if these new career changes of yours include building a team, let’s make it bi-coastal.

  2. […] Blog Comments Breaking News: Qualc… on DutiesNick Brestoff, M.S.,… on E-Discovery Metrics – On…E-Discovery Metrics … on A Supreme Court Justice Writes…E-Discovery Metrics … […]

  3. Jeff Reed says:

    Ralph –

    As always, a fun and enlightening read. Another analogy – Teams, Cooperation & Metrics are the three wheels of the ediscovery cart. Education is the oil that lets them roll smoothly. And as with most lubricants on moving parts, it needs to be renewed regularly.

    Best regards,

    Jeff Reed

  4. Aaron Taylor says:

    Mr. Losey –

    I greatly enjoy, and benefit from your writings. I do seem, however, to notice an omission that occurs quite often in reference to your “team makeup” – that of the Information Manager, or perhaps more commonly referred to as the Corporate Records Manager. In my 20 years experience as a records and information management consultant, I have become most comfortable with seeing not only the necessity of a close, respected and inter-active relationship between the records management group and the IT group, but also a need for some differentiation of their roles; as such, I favor a basic description of RIM presiding over true information management, and IT being responsible for data management – with very strong skillsets that are unique to each group. That said, I feel there should be a very strong emphasis on the early inclusion of the Corporate Records Manager in all discovery activities, and going further, as a key participant in formulating discovery processes. The CRM will (or certainly should!) possess strong knowledge regarding information repositories, formats, ownership, etc. as well as a first-responder intuition of information relevance pertaining to the litigation subject. I just do not see IT as possessing that type of knowledge or competence – nor should they have to…collection, preservation and delivery seems to me to be their “forte”.

    Your pillars for discovery analogy and concept is excellent, in my mind. And I appreciate your ability to make litigation subleties meaningful and understandable to the lay community.


    Aaron Taylor

  5. […] This is a situation The Sedona Conference has focused much of its efforts on:  calling on lawyers to work more collaboratively during the discovery phase so that greater time and attention (and money) can be spent on litigating the merits of the underlying dispute.  But its success was premised on getting the judiciary to support its ideals. As we have reported in numerous posts from numerous conferences, judges used to rarely be involved in discovery, but with recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding e-discovery, judges now play a central role.  It is an issue that Ralph Losey has written about in numerous posts.  For a sample of his commentary click here. […]

  6. […] “reasonable effort” as it applies to e-discovery? Ralph Losey covered this on his blog here and […]

Leave a Reply