Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
E-discovery, as an industry, is once again at an inflection point. As both an industry and technical endeavor that is now older than 20 years, it has rarely stood still for more than a couple years. Looking back at that (simpler?) time, the 1990s saw more and more relevant information being produced and maintained in electronic format, until finally in 2003-04, the Zubulake rulings delivered a clarion call to organizations that they had an obligation to preserve (and produce) relevant electronically stored information (ESI) just as thoroughly as they did traditional paper documents.
Since then, we've seen changes in technology (from specialized point tools to broad e-discovery platforms); processes (from fragmented, multi-party, and reactive to proactive), and people (from highly technical specialists to members of in-house legal teams). And the changes keep on coming. What are the big trends that are exerting pressure on e-discovery teams today — and more importantly, what will an effective e-discovery team look like in the coming years?
Despite advances in technology and wider adoption of best practices, the demands on in-house legal teams continue to rise for a variety of reasons. The number of disputes, especially class action suits, is increasing, as are data volumes and data sources. The regulatory landscape continues to evolve, both in terms of general data privacy regulations and industry-specific regulations. Business imperatives to control costs exert downward pressure on budgets as well. These forces aren't necessarily new, after all. We live in a litigious society. Laws change to meet the challenges of the day. Businesses have — and always will — demand efficiency.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.