Exterro has made available for download the results of a 2016 survey of federal judges and e-discovery lawyers on how judges and attorneys respond to the same e-discovery questions.

“Based on the complexity of today’s “Digital Age,” being undereducated and underprepared is no longer an option,” Exterro says on its website. “However, an expectation gap still exists between what judges expect related to the process of e-discovery and what attorneys think is appropriate. The results from this year’s Federal Judges Survey will give legal professionals an inside look on how judges and attorneys respond to the same e-discovery questions, along with information to improve their pre-trial litigation practices in 2016.”

Survey results cover such topics as the effectiveness of new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), general e-discovery competency in the legal market, and the effects of emerging technology trends on litigation practices.

Download the survey results.

Exterro will present a five-part webinar series in which e-discovery and legal experts will debate the five most controversial e-discovery issues from 2015 and help you stay informed with the latest information around these e-discovery topics.

The series will cover best practices on:

1. Preserving / Collecting New Data Types
2. Reducing E-Discovery Costs without Sacrificing Defensibility
3. Managing Large Volumes of Corporate Data
4. Deciding How and When to Preserve Data
5. Working with IT / Legal Effectively

Register for the webinar series.

ZAPPROVED has released the results of an online survey of 92 in-house legal staff about their methods of data processing — manual, in-house software or outsource to service provider. The survey then asked them to rate their satisfaction with their process based on three dimensions: cost, time and ease.

The survey respondents consisted of legal professionals, including attorneys, litigation support managers, paralegals and non-legal professionals such as IT and records managers, from in-house legal teams at organizations.

Download this resource to learn what:

• Process is still used the most
• Are the most common reasons for frustration
• In-house teams are most satisfied by
• Kind of resources in-house teams are using

Download the report.

iCONECT has collected all the relevant eDiscovery surveys and reports from the past year and made it available as a complimentary downloadable infographic.

The infographic covers such topics as what federal judges think about attorneys’ eDiscovery competency, the percentage of corporations spending at least $1M on eDiscovery, and how well was the “cloud” received.

iCONECT Development, LLC develops legal review software and services for legal teams to use to complete complex review projects.

Download the infographic.

iCONECT, developers of XERA e-discovery software, has announced that personal injury and whistleblower law firm Waters Kraus & Paul has selected XERA to help manage the firm’s e-discovery.

“After seeing XERA in action, we were very impressed with its dynamic search capabilities, as well as its ability to accurately locate documents with natural search queries using conceptual analytics technology,” said Vicki Via, MA, CEDS, Litigation Support, at Waters, Kraus & Paul.

In a release, iCONECT said the latest version of iCONECT-XERA includes a number of new features including the ability of legal teams to visualize data sets using conceptual clusters, intuitively displaying concepts from similar documents in a way that better illustrates the full spectrum of concepts, along with the number of documents associated with each concept, the ability to organize homepage tiles in groups making it easy for users to find information, and customization that allows firms and legal service providers the ability to create corporate branded portals, specific to the firm and/or project.

Read more about the announcement.

iCONECT, developers of XERA e-discovery software, announced its move to the newly renovated “London Street Railway Power Plant” building in London.

A spokesman said the move marks iCONECT’s continued growth and commitment to provide employees with a positive work environment while fostering the creativity and collaboration needed to develop the e-discovery industry’s easiest-to-use software.

“Originally built in 1894 on the east side of the Thames River, the industrial look of the newly renovated building harkens back to the time when London factories were booming – with a hip twist: the revamped building with its exposed brick archways and second story steel mezzanine channels the vibe and energy of a startup culture; and an open floor layout and ample space allows for collaborative work and relaxation that iCONECT’s current and duture staff of millennials and Gen Xers alike will appreciate,” the company said in a release.

“It’s important for our employees to have an environment that is cohesive, with positive energy where people can feed off each other. Having a space like this allows everyone to engage to produce a spectacular product and continue to thrive as one of the world’s top e-discovery review software products,” says Ian Campbell, iCONECT’s President and CEO.

Read more and see a video.

Maintaining a complete chain of custody record involves multiple types of documentation, reports Indiana lawyer Helen Geib for QDiscovery. What types are used in a particular case depends on what the evidence is and how it’s handled. These are the five major categories of ESI chain of custody documentation.

a) Collection forms – Collection forms should record:

– Client, case or project name, and client-matter number;
– Date and time, location, and the name of the collection technician;
– The copying programs and/or other collection tools used;
– Description of collection target (e.g., network share, cell phone);
– Custodian name or similar identifying information for the data source;
– Details about the collection such as the number of files copied and errors;
– Description of destination media (e.g., external hard drive with inventory number);
– Unique project and collection tracking numbers; and,
– Any pertinent notes about the collection.
– You can download a sample PDF copy of the QDiscovery collection form at http://qdiscovery.com/images/QDiscovery_Data_Collection_Form_Sample.pdf.

b) Photos – Photos should be taken of physical evidence, electronic devices, and media like hard drives and DVDs. In the ESI context, this typically means photos of labels and any noticeable damage such as a bent cell phone casing.

c) Delivery and shipping logs –A combination of logs and forms is used to document basic information like date, sender and recipient, courier/shipper, and tracking number. Shipping labels and packaging are typically documented with photos, although these may also be scanned or even stored as-is, space allowing.

d) Transfer and handling logs – Evidence intake, check-in/check-out, and hand-off is documented with logs recording the what, who, when, where, and why of the transfer. The “what” of electronic devices and physical media includes a description of the item (e.g., make and model, serial number), any labels, and a list of peripherals like power cords. The “what” of ESI is data volume/file size and other information sufficient to identify the data, such as custodian name, folder name, how it was transmitted, and hash value.

e) Software logs –Copying and other ESI-related software programs automatically generate various verification, tally, and error logs. These are programs used for:

-Making forensic images of computer hard drives and other electronic devices and media;
-Copying electronic folders and files;
-Forensic examination of physical evidence or in the ESI context, electronic devices, media, and files;
-ESI processing in connection with using a document review database; and,
-Generating document production sets.

f) Other supporting documentation – The final type is supporting documentation about chain of custody procedures, software tools, and evidence repositories. For example, validation documentation is available for forensics software and hardware. This category also includes forensic lab best practices and security protocols for evidence lockers and media storage rooms.

Zapproved is offering a complimentary recap called “State of Preservation Today” from The Proceedings from the 2015 Conference on Preservation Excellence. Michael Arkfeld moderated the discussion, which included panelists Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, Ariana Tadler and Robert Owen.

Three trends shaping the e-discovery world today, the panel discussed, are big data, the cloud, and mobile.

These trends mean organizations are at greater risk than ever from an e-discovery crisis created by a preservation lapse. Teams need to be in rapid-response, even first responder mode to effectively serve the enterprise. By describing the state of the industry, panelists and audience members set the tone for the rest of the conference, approved said.

Download the recap.

For most people the phrase “chain of custody” conjures images of smoking guns and drug busts, writes Indiana lawyer Helen Geib on QDiscovery‘s website. The importance of chain of custody in criminal cases is well known, and police and prosecutors have clear and detailed guidelines for handling physical evidence. By contrast there is relatively little understanding of the unique problems and considerations underlying chain of custody for electronic evidence. However, given ESI’s ubiquity and high risk of (usually inadvertent) spoliation, ESI chain of custody is an issue that civil litigators cannot afford to ignore.

Her article continues:

Defining “Chain of Custody”

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model’s online glossary defines chain of custody as:

“All information on a file’s travels from its original creation version to its final production version. A detailed account of the location of each document/file from the beginning of a project until the end. A sound chain of custody verifies that you have not altered information either in the copying process or during analysis.”

In other words, chain of custody shows a) where the evidence has been; b) who has touched it; and c) its condition at all times. It tracks an object or file through the evidence lifecycle of:

– Collection at the source;
– All transfers between source and courtroom;
– Storage; and,
– Handling for inspection, review, and forensic examination.

The norm is to demonstrate that there has been no change in the condition of the evidence. Where evidence is altered- for example, taking a sample of the white powder to send to the drug lab for analysis- the chain of custody must document the circumstances and details. This is of acute importance in forensic examination of computers, mobile phones, and other electronic devices, as forensics frequently necessitates making some changes to the source media or files. Documenting what happened does not prove that the alteration was necessary and appropriate; that must be independently demonstrated.

How ESI Chain of Custody Is Different

A principal distinction between ESI and physical evidence in the context of chain of custody is that ESI involves copies: an object is picked up and moved; an electronic file is copied. The differences start at the point of collection. In contrast to seizing an evidence item, chain of custody for an electronic file establishes that an identical copy has been created. In fact, ESI may potentially be copied many times over in the course of collection, transfer, and handling.

Another important distinction is that eDiscovery routinely involves altering evidence by changing the file format. Lawyers’ continuing preference for TIFF or PDF production format (ideally with linked metadata, extracted text, and for certain data types, native files) makes file format changes both necessary and desirable. The key point here is to show that the information contained in the file has not been altered in the course of ESI processing, review, and production.

Why Chain of Custody Is Important (and its Limits)

Chain of custody is an essential part of authentication. It shows:

– Provenance- This picture was found on the cell phone seized from the suspect on such and such date, or this Excel spreadsheet was copied from the company’s server at this folder location; and,
– Integrity- The knife had this person’s fingerprints on it when it was picked up at the scene, or this PDF is a true and accurate copy of the text content of the Word document copied from the witness’ computer.

What chain of custody does not show is what happened before collection. For instance, it is not in itself evidence that the owner of the computer created the files found on it, and it is similarly silent as to who had access to the computer pre-collection or what programs were installed. And of course, it is not relevant to understanding meaning or significance.

Who is Responsible for Chain of Custody

Primary responsibility for maintaining ESI chain of custody rests with whoever is in possession of it at any given time. Most of the time in civil discovery this is the eDiscovery services provider. Having defensible chain of custody procedures should always be considered in vendor selection.

Responsibility will shift to, or be shared with, the client when IT staff or individual document custodians are involved in data collection. Failure to keep good documentation is one of the most significant risks of unsupervised client self-collection. Finally, post-production, law firms and lawyers must take care not to alter ESI, particularly files produced in native format.

Exterro and General Counsel News are offering for complimentary download a new e-discovery case law white paper to review three must-know e-discovery cases from 2015.

The paper covers:

• How courts are applying traditional principles (e.g. reasonableness, cooperation) in an e-discovery landscape transformed by new types of technology (e.g. mobile, social media).
• Tips for preventing e-discovery mistakes made in each one of these 3 cases.
• Key takeaways that will ensure your e-discovery process is defensible and adjusts to evolving case law standards.

Download the paper.

Legal technology company Everlaw announced that it has released functionality that it said expands Everlaw’s post-review toolset, helping lawyers move seamlessly from reviewing documents to building their case from e-discovery to litigation.

The new StoryBuilder Chronology will allow lawyers curate key documents to organize the most important documents identified in review, so legal teams can spot patterns, identify gaps, and develop the most compelling narratives for their case. By doing it during review, they can save valuable time, the company said.

Read the announcement

iCONECT has prepared an infographic guide to help in improving document review. The company has made that infographic available for free download.

“2016 budgeting season is here and many firms find themselves disenfranchised from their document review platform of choice, or worse, forced to lock themselves into a long-term commitment for an expensive, unwanted bundle, that doesn’t even qualify as best-in-class,” the company says on its website.

The infographic is designed to help take a document review platform beyond the status quo and choosing the best platform for the job.

Download the infographic.

Christopher M. Schultz has become Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Level 2 Legal Solutions, a leading e-discovery and legal services outsourcing firm. Schultz goes to Level 2 from the AmLaw 50 firm Perkins Coie, where he was the founder and co-chair of the firm’s e-discovery practice.

“I have partnered with Level 2 on the most complex and sensitive of cases over the years and have watched them position themselves right where I want to be  ̶  at the intersection of technology and unparalleled personal attention to clients’ needs,” said Schultz. “There is a new value model quickly emerging in the legal world, and the opportunities are tremendous for Level 2.”

Schultz joins Level 2 after more than 16 years with Perkins Coie. He formed and co-chaired the E-Discovery Services & Strategies legal practice at the firm in 2007 and quickly established himself as one of the first experts in the new world of e-discovery law. A faculty member for The Sedona Conference, the legal sector’s premier forum dedicated to the advancement of e-discovery law and policy, Schultz graduated summa cum laude from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law where he was an editor of the Arizona Law Review.

“Schultz’s extensive relationships range from Fortune 50 corporations to technology startups, having provided advice and expertise on the legal and technical issues surrounding data retention, corporate compliance, document production and the full scope of e-discovery in litigation and investigations,” the company said in a release. “He has also served as a key discovery expert in a number of high-profile intellectual property and employment class-action matters.”

Read more about the move.

iCONECT, developers of XERA e-discovery software, announced that all XERA licenses now will include XERA’s full suite of analytic tools, including: predictive coding, workflow, iCONECT’s XMPLAR, near-duplication, conceptual search, email threading and iVIEW cluster visualization.

“Allowing clients to use analytics on an unlimited amount of data, across all users and on all projects – without the additional per-gigabyte charges of other review products – provides much needed predictability to project budgets,” the company said in a release.

“The ability to include analytics, specifically predictive review with every project will mean real savings for our clients,” says Gavin W. Manes, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Avansic, an iCONECT hosting partner. “iCONECT continues to add value to the XERA platform, and now with near-dupe, threading and predictive review included in licensing, our clients will benefit immensely.”

Read more information.