Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Tech: 10 Things I Hate About Your QC Plan
Document review is a crucial aspect of discovery, allowing parties to gather relevant information and evidence to build their case. However, the vast amounts of electronically stored information that needs to be reviewed can be overwhelming and complex, leading to potential errors, inconsistencies and even omissions that could lead to sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
To mitigate these risks, it is essential to have a quality control plan to ensure the accuracy and completeness of your review are consistent with the certification requirements of Rule 26(g) of the FRCP. To help make this process smoother, we've compiled a list of 10 common mistakes in poorly designed QC plans along with practical tips for developing your QC plan so you can avoid these pitfalls.
1. Failing to Revisit Your QC Plan
QC should be an iterative process, which is tested and adjusted as the project progresses. Your initial assumptions may not ring true, and it is not a good idea to stick with an original plan when the underlying parameters are different than expected or the review evolves to include different data, custodians or issues. For example, if you notice that a document set contains thousands of blast emails or embedded images that you can eliminate from the QC pool efficiently and effectively, your QC percentage may not need to be as high as originally estimated.
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.