TAR Caselaw Update: Out West and Down Under

Here on the DiscoverReady blog, we report periodically on significant developments in the case law regarding the use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) in legal discovery. This update, which recaps three cases decided in the last several months, takes us out to the Left Coast, and then to the land down under.

Knowledge Management: Transforming Litigation Discovery into Organizational Intelligence

By adding human insight, Knowledge Management (KM) transforms a flat dataset of information into a treasure trove of centralized intelligence, which can be used to make informed business decisions. In the specific context of litigation and regulatory discovery, our experience at DiscoverReady shows that a comprehensive knowledge management strategy can play a critical role in shaping future decisions by clients and counsel. In this blog, we’ll cover some approachable starting points to build a robust KM program into discovery efforts.

DiscoverReady’s New Year’s Resolutions

Happy New Year! As we turn the calendar to 2016 and reflect on what the year ahead might bring, I asked some of my DiscoverReady colleagues to share some of their resolutions for the new year. Here’s what they resolve to accomplish in 2016. . .

Stipulations for Discovery of ESI: America’s Next Top Model

In federal court—and in most state courts—parties must meet and confer at the beginning of the litigation to discuss various case management issues, and hopefully reach stipulated agreements about those issues. The discussions must address the discovery of electronically stored information, a subject that in too many cases causes needless amounts of disagreement, delay, expense, and overall angst among the litigants and counsel. Why is the negotiation of ESI stipulations so difficult?

Grab your Surfboard, a Wave of Data Breach Litigation is Rolling In

Last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit departed from most other federal courts, and allowed a data breach litigation to proceed where plaintiffs demonstrated no actual injuries, but a “substantial risk” of future injury.