e-Discovery Team ®

• Search

• Ralph’s Tweets

  • I find the Fermi Paradox very troubling, but it fits right in with current events & my growing pessimism.… twitter.com/i/web/status/8… 3 hours ago
  • Homo Deus: Praying at the alter of Dataism in a future I don't want to reach afr.com/technology/hom… via @FinancialReview 5 hours ago
  • RT @tribelaw: But T knew of & invited R meddling, lied about it, & used "rigged election" charge to make O fear acting! Now closes circle b… 6 hours ago
  Follow @RalphLosey

• #1 Blog for eDiscovery

  The Posse List ranked this blog as the Number One 'go to' blog on e-Discovery out of the 407 that they follow. They say: "Absolutely delicious detail on everything you need to know on software and the search and review of electronic evidence using artificial intelligence."

• Losey’s eDiscovery Books

  e-Discovery for Everyone, (ABA, 2017). Also see Ralph's video on this book.
  Perspectives on Predictive Coding, co-editor & contributing author (ABA, 2017).
  Adventures in Electronic Discovery (West Thomson Reuters, 2011).
  Electronic Discovery: New Ideas, Trends, Case Law, and Practices (West Thomson Reuters, 2010).
  Introduction to E-Discovery: New Cases, Ideas, and Techniques (ABA 2009).
  e-Discovery: Current Trends and Cases (ABA 2008).

• Related Legal Webs

  • AI Enhanced Review
  • Bottom Line Driven Review
  • DISCLAIMER
  • E-Discovery Best Practices
  • E-Discovery Team Training
  • eDiscoverySecurity
  • Face Book
  • Hacker Law
  • Info→Knowledge→Wisdom
  • Legal Search Science
  • Predictive Coding Articles
  • RalphLosey.com
  • You Tube: Losey Channel
  • Zero Error Numerics: ZEN

• Follow Blog by Email

  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

• About the Blogger

  Ralph Losey is a practicing attorney and shareholder in a national law firm with 50+ offices and over 800 lawyers where he is in charge of Electronic Discovery. All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients. No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such.

  Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books. He is also the founder of Electronic Discovery Best Practices, and the founder and CEO of e-Discovery TeamTraining, an online education program that arose out of his five years as an adjunct professor teaching e-Discovery and Evidence at the UF School of Law. Ralph is also publisher and principle author of this blog and many other instructional websites.

  Ralph is a specialist who has limited his legal practice to electronic discovery and tech law since 2006. He has a special interest in software and the search and review of electronic evidence using artificial intelligence, and also in cybersecurity. Ralph devotes about a month per year on scientific research and experiments in the field of legal search. He is a participant in the 2016 and 2015 TREC Recall Track and prior to that competed successfully in the EDI Oracle research.

  Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since 1980. Ralph has the highest peer AV rating as a lawyer and was selected as a Best Lawyer in America in three categories: Commercial Litigation; E-Discovery and Information Management Law; and Information Technology Law. Ralph also received the "Most Trusted Legal Advisor" industry award for 2016-17 by the Masters Conference. His full biography may be found at RalphLosey.com.

  Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, and Adam Losey, a lawyer with cyber expertise (married to another cyber expert lawyer, Catherine Losey), and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.
  

• Tour of Blog’s 9 Pgs

  Guided Tour of e-Discovery Team Blog Pages

• Law Review Articles

  Predictive Coding and the Proportionality Doctrine: a Marriage Made in Big Data, 26 Regent U. Law Review 1 (2013-2014).
  HASH: The New Bates Stamp, 12 Journal of Technology Law & Policy 1 (June 2007).
  Mancia v. Mayflower Begins a Pilgrimage to the New World of Cooperation, 10 Sedona Conf. J. 377 (2009 Supp.)
  Lawyers Behaving Badly, 60 Mercer L. Rev. 983 (Spring 2009).

• Math Tools for QC

  Gaussian Classical Random Sample Size Calculator

  Binomial Confidence Interval Calculator

• Select Interviews

  1. Radio interview by Ari Kaplan about my Electronic Discovery Best Practices model, EDBP.
  2. Radio interview about my quality assurance method, ei-Recall.
  3. 2014 Video of "Google Hangout" video panel discussion on Cybersecurity and Law Firms by Michele Lange.
  4. 2014 Interview on e-Discovery Trends by Doug Austin.
  5.2013 LegalTech Video Interview for LTN on Outsourcing by Monica Bay.
  6. 2013 LegalTech Interview on e-Discovery Trends by Doug Austin.
  7. Ralph Losey and Judge Shira Scheindlin on ESIbytes.
  8. April 2012 interview, audio and edited transcript, on general topics, rules and best-practices.
  9. Video interview at Legaltech 2012 on predictive coding.
  

• Recent Blog Comments

  	Joshua on TAR Course Updated to Add Vide…
  	TAR Course Updated t… on Another TAR Course Update and…
  	Another TAR Course U… on Another TAR Course Update and…
  	Ralph Losey on The Nine Tasks the California…

• Blog Stats

  • 1,363,340 visits

• Legal Robots Are Coming!

  

• Sedona Principles 3rd Ed

  1. Electronically stored information is generally subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.

  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 importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

  3. As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information.

  4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; 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 is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of 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 to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.

  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. Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.

  11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria.

  12. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.

  13. The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party.

  14. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.

  Third Edition, Copyright © 2017 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.

• Blog Pages

  • About
    • DISCLAIMER
    • Ralph Losey Biography
  • Books
    • E-DISCOVERY FOR EVERYONE
      • Ralph’s Video Intro to his Book, “E-Discovery For Everyone (ABA 2017)
    • PERSPECTIVES ON PREDICTIVE CODING
  • FRCP
    • 1
    • 16
    • 2015 Rule Amendments
    • 26
    • 34
    • 37
    • Rule 502 Evidence Code
  • Mr.EDR
    • e-Discovery Team’s 2015 TREC Report
  • School
    • Are Today’s CLE Programs Doomed to Go the Way of the Newspaper?
    • Cyber Law School in e-Discovery is Now Open!
    • Florida Bar Approves the Blog’s Online Education Program
    • Fresh Perspectives on e-Discovery from Young Minds in the “Academy
    • Hash
    • Judge Shira Scheindlin and I Speak on e-Discovery and Education
    • Kroll’s Annual Report: Same-Old, Same-Old. So What Are We Going To Do About It?
    • Meta
    • Online e-Discovery Instruction in Law School Is Now a Reality
    • Plato’s Cave: why most lawyers love paper and hate e-discovery and what this means to the future of legal education
    • Replead for Participation and Another Case Showing the Need for Better Education
    • The E-Discovery Crisis: An Immediate Challenge to our Nation’s Law Schools
    • The Law Firm Apprenticeship Tradition And Why Most Lawyers Are Still Untrained in e-Discovery
    • “Teach Your Children Well” – A Case for Teaching E-Discovery in Law Schools
  • Security
    • Cybersecurity Videos
    • Must Read Books on Cybersecurity
  • TAR
    • 5 Tips
    • Legal Search Science
    • Predictive Coding 4.0
    • Predictive Coding Articles by Ralph Losey
    • TAR
      • Form Outline of a Detailed Plan for Predictive Coding
  • TAR Course
    • TAR Course: 10th Class
    • TAR Course: 11th Class
    • TAR Course: 12th Class
    • TAR Course: 13th Class
    • TAR Course: 14th Class
    • TAR Course: 15th Class
    • TAR Course: 16th Class
    • TAR Course: 17th Class
    • TAR Course: 1st Class
    • TAR Course: 2nd Class
    • TAR Course: 3rd Class
    • TAR Course: 4th Class
    • TAR Course: 5th Class
    • TAR Course: 6th Class
    • TAR Course: 7th Class
    • TAR Course: 8th Class
    • TAR Course: 9th Class

• Top Posts & Pages

  • 
    Added to the 13th and 14th Class of the TAR Course
  • 
    Jones Day Attorney Misconduct Shows Rotten State of Obstructionist Discovery in America
  • 
    A State Court Judge's View on e-Discovery (Part Two)
  • 
    The CIA Cyber Security Triad and 9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a
  • 
    The Top Twenty-Two Most Interesting e-Discovery Opinions of 2016

• BLOGGING MUSIC

  Bach More Bach Debussy Gershwin

Blog at WordPress.com.