Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Best Practices in Second Request Document Review: How to Execute An E-discovery-Based Plan
In our previous article, we discussed approaches to managing second requests using core project management principles that allow you to control the timeliness, cost, and quality of your organization's response. In this follow-up, we look at the pragmatics of strategizing and executing a successful plan.
Establishing a clear strategy for your response from the outset can help limit the scope of the overall second request.
As you start planning your second-request strategy, the most important thing is to engage all key stakeholders at the earliest possible moment. This will provide you with the facts you need to build the four cornerstones of your response:
- Your negotiation strategy to limit scope of review
- How your technology can help streamline the review
- Where most (if not all) of the potential data is located, using the most requested items as your starting point and
- An understanding of your unstructured data so you can work out how to review it or, if necessary, produce reports from these systems.
This last cornerstone is especially critical. Unstructured data (such as financial data and reports from CRM, HRIS, and ERP systems whose data doesn't exist in a specific database or location) needs careful handling in e-discovery. For example, reports or exports from those systems don't lend themselves to traditional or AI review techniques and often need to be authenticated through a third party or an expert. You'll therefore need to establish a process that specifies how you plan to review those documents, which techniques you're going to use, how you'll validate and certify the results, and ultimately what the form of production will be for these sets of data.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.