Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Extract Maximum Value from e-Discovery Service Providers
The unfortunate reality is that companies regularly involved in litigation can expect to pay service providers (a.k.a., “vendors”) a substantial sum of money for e-discovery services. Estimates indicate that companies will spend nearly $10 billion annually on e-discovery in the coming years. Are companies getting their money's worth for these services? What can companies do to extract maximum value from their e-discovery service providers?
These questions should not go unanswered. To this end I have identified four steps that companies can follow to help extract maximum value from e-discovery service providers. I believe it is more likely than not that following these steps will result in a net reduction in e-discovery spending. The steps, as detailed below, are: 1) Gather and normalize e-discovery spending data; 2) Analyze the results and define the system to identify what is valued most; 3) Establish new expectations; and 4) Take action to increase value and likely reduce overall spending.
Gather and Normalize e-Discovery Spending Data
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?