12 Responses to Judge Scheindlin Withdraws Her NDLON Opinion

  1. anonymous says:

    Interesting points, but there is a difference between e-discovery (litigation) and “free discovery” (FOIA). Until checks such as proportionality and cost-shifting are introduced in e-FOIA requests, federal, state, and local governments will be crippled by such requests in a time of limited funds. So paper crutch, it is.

  2. Lynne says:

    When discovery of hundreds of thousands of electronic documents can be completed, from processing through review to production, for a piece of software that can be had for $895, it is ridiculous to assert that cost is a barrier. Simply ridiculous.

    • Sarah says:

      Let’s just ignore the costs for the documents having to be culled, reviewed, and processed for production – which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And likely since a vendor processes the documents, the cost of the software is irrelevant. You must be thinking of self-producing 10-12 documents.

  3. […] I apologize in advance for the brevity of this post, but I am running up against a client meeting.  However, I thought that it was important to share a fairly important order from Judge Shira Scheindlin regarding  NDLON v. Ice.  The issue at hand was metadata and its place in public records.  As usual, the e-Discovery Team does a phenomenal job laying out the issues at hand in the first post entitled, “New Opinion by Judge Scheindlin on FOIA, Metadata and Cooperation” and the most recent post, “Judge Scheindlin Withdraws Her NDLON Opinion.” […]

  4. WTKJD says:

    The point is not whether or not metadata is discoverable. The problem is how to craft an effective, low-cost redaction capability for privileged metadata within native files. Sure, you can search and replace columns of extracted metadata, but the file is still intact, and the process is still time consuming and expensive to perform and QC.

    Moreover, to date, there is no universally acceptible digital redaction methodology for ‘data’ i.e. informational text (except to convert to quasi paper and mimic a black marker strikethrough) much less privileged metadata. It is not really that hard to do, technically, but nobody knowledgeable will bite the bullet and be the test case. Nevertheless, this next layer of redaction is beyond the ken of most and the heart of the issue with NDLON. Judge Scheindlin did the right thing and kudos to her for having the temerity to do it.

    What $895 software system allows you to digitally redact metadata in native files?

    • I am familiar with the price of one such software being at that point. It could be Digital WarRoom [for a stand alone copy]. But Sarah’s comments are to the point. The cost is not in the software, but the tech time, the project management time, the attorney time to review, to redact, etc., etc.

  5. […] the news that Judge Shira Scheindlin has withdrawn her ground breaking decision in NDLON v. ICE: “Judge Scheindlin Withdraws Her NDLON Opinion” (also covered by K&L Gates and Michael Arkfeld) Read more articles written by Owen […]

  6. […] between these two ESI worlds, with lawyers, judges and other eDiscovery practitioners talking about metadata, slack space, Web server RAM, Google+ and the like (and software/tech companies bemoaning the costs […]

  7. […] In June, Scheindlin withdrew her opinion, which was originally announced in February 2011, because she said it was not based on a full and […]

  8. theory…

    […]Judge Scheindlin Withdraws Her NDLON Opinion « e-Discovery Team[…]…

  9. […] a blanket refusal to ever produce any metadata? Yet, that is exactly what happened this year in NDLON v. ICE. Who else but big government can get away with a paper-only records retention policies that were […]

%d bloggers like this: