Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Time: 10:00 AM Pacific

EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon hosts this special eDiscovery Webinar with United States District Judge James M. Rosenbaum and Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel discussing eDiscovery and the law. James D.Shook, Esq., Sr. Director of EMC eDiscovery team, will be moderating the webinar.

The Judges decree that attorneys can no longer hide behind the arcane intricacies of Information Technology to sidestep eDiscovery motions. Attorneys that plead IT ignorance can be sanctioned and referred to the Bar. The Judges say that it is time for attorneys to understand their companies IT capabilities and limitations or face the consequences.

Join us for the Judges

Register today and Discover, as space is limited for these once only premium webinars.

HOPKINTON, Mass., March 5 /PRNewswire/ — EMC Corporation (NYSE: EMC), the world leader in information infrastructure solutions, increased its longstanding position as the top provider of external disk storage systems, according to the latest IDC Worldwide Quarterly Disk Storage Systems Tracker, March 2010. [a]

Discover More

[a] IDC

Fortune released its acclaimed World’s Most Admired Companies list today.  Fortune ranked EMC as #3 in the World’s Most Admired Computer companies.

Discover the Full Story.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:00 am
Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00)

If you missed this last year, you have a second change. Reserve your seat early, as attendance is limited.  The Judges’ candor is quite refreshing and their eDiscovery knowledge is unparalleled.

Discover the Webinar

“Due to high customer demand from our EMC customer base, our eDiscovery and Archival division is growing and we are looking for top talent,” says Jake Frazier, MBA, Esq., Sr. Director of eDiscovery Sales for EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon division. “Today’s team is comprised of noted business, engineering and legal professionals.  We want to build on our strong foundational team and add professionals with “A+” talent, which want to contribute to developing the global eDiscovery and Archival market.”

If you have what it takes and are interested in joining our elite eDiscovery and Archival Team, review our open positions and apply at:  eDiscovery Jobs.

Principals only.

Heidi Maher, Esq. eDiscovery Expert

If you missed the Fulbright & Jaworski webinar entitled: Brave New World: In-sourcing eDiscovery in 2010, you should find the time to watch it.

Fulbright’s Electronic Discovery and Information Management e-Solutions Web Seminar Series is always extremely valuable. I found that Brave New World hit the proverbial nail on the head. Companies cannot ignore eDiscovery, as Judges have educated themselves on eDiscovery capabilities and are issuing hefty sanctions on corporation which attempt to stick their head in the sand.  So its not surprising that Fulbright & Jaworski’s 2009 Litigation Trends Survey, confirmed a growing trend: almost one-half of 408 participants reported in-sourcing some aspects of eDiscovery.   Corporate America has realized that it needs to expand its efforts to take control of eDiscovery risks and reduce overall litigation spending.   Emerging technologies are changing the landscape for in-sourcing eDiscovery, making it more accessible, feasible and cost-effective.

In Brave New World Part II, a panel of experienced attorneys Laurie Weiss Partner at Fulbright and Liane Komagome, Director of Business Information Management at Enterprise Products Company and Business Technologist Brian Evans of Fulbright discussed in-sourcing eDiscovery, including practical pointers for selecting strategic partners, identifying appropriate processes and technology solutions, evaluating advantages and disadvantages for your environment, and implementing and deploying solutions.

Heidi Maher, Esq., EMC eDiscovery Expert Team

Discover More @ Fullbright & Jaworski

E-DISCOVERY FAILINGS THAT AMOUNT TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE

The court identified the following e-discovery failures as sufficient to show gross negligence:

1. Failure “to issue a written litigation hold” at the time when the duty to preserve documents first attached

Despite the well-settled law that the duty to preserve evidence arises from the time that a party reasonably anticipates litigation, the plaintiffs in Pension Committee made no effort to preserve and collect relevant documents until they retained joint counsel. The court observed that the sophisticated plaintiffs in Pension Committee were presumptively aware of prospective litigation six months before joint counsel’s retention, and 10 months before the action was filed, and that their duty to preserve had arisen at that time.

Moreover, the joint counsel’s communications with plaintiffs were held insufficient to constitute an adequate litigation hold because:

• The communications did not direct the preservation of documents or instruct plaintiffs not to destroy records;

• The communications gave employees the discretion to search and select relevant documents without supervision; and

• The communications did not create a mechanism for collection and production of documents. ?

2. Failure “to identify the key players and to ensure that their electronic and paper records are preserved”

The court found that five of the six plaintiffs found grossly negligent had excessively limited the group of individuals from whom documents were preserved and collected. The court in particular noted these plaintiffs’ failure to have requested documents:

• from individuals who, while not the central actors, were nevertheless involved in the matter that was the subject of litigation;

• from individuals who were in a supervisory position, such as members of a board of trustees; and

• from individuals to whom certain work may have been delegated. ?

Discover the Full Article

Excerpt from Law.com’s Legal Technology Blog

Matthew Nelson, Esq., EMC eDiscovery Expert

By Matthew Nelson, Esq.

Fresh off the heels of yet another LegalTech New York event in early February, it remains clear that the promise to make a fortune from e-discovery continues to lure more and more companies to the table to claim their fair share of the feast. Working in the legal technology space for a decade as a lawyer and e-discovery consultant, I like to think I know most of the e-discovery players, but the emergence of countless new companies, partnerships, and technologies would probably leave the head of even the most seasoned e-discovery veteran spinning when trying to figure out who’s who in the e-discovery zoo.

After slogging through the LTNY vendor exhibition hall, past hundreds of e-discovery vendors, I felt dazed by a roller coaster of emotions. I asked myself if it was normal to feel enlightened, confused, annoyed, and sometimes downright scared, by aggressive marketing after only a brief waltz through e-discovery land. Should I be worried about feeling a bit overwhelmed or was everyone else just as confused by all the hype? Then it hit me like a ton of bricks: “What the heck is ECA?”

Discover More @ Law.com

To Register – Click DISCOVER - Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10am PT

The authors of “eDiscovery for Dummies” join EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon to discuss “Making Your Company Bullet-Proof“:

• The sources of the highest costs of e-discovery
• Which overlooked issues can cost you the case
• How to prepare for a swift and strong response to litigation
• 3 R’s of e-discovery: reasonableness, readiness, and ROI
• How to reduce the charged environment between legal, HR, and IT

About the Authors:
Dr. Linda Volonino (PhD, MBA, CISSP, ACFE) is an author, lecturer, computer forensic authority, eDiscovery specialist and expert witness. More

Ian Redpath (JD, LLM) is an author, lecturer, eDiscovery expert, practicing attorney and former prosecutor. More

“Dr. Linda Volonino and Ian Redpath, Esq.,  have compiled a comprehensive text on eDiscovery which allows an eDiscovery novice to get up to speed quickly and which serves as a reference for Advanced eDiscovery professionals. The text is written for both the Legal and IT professional and  it does a great job bridging the legal/IT knowledge gap. ” says J. David Morris – EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon.

February 23, 2010
Fulbright Alert – Litigation
Supreme Court Adopts More Predictable Principal-Place-of-Business Test

In a case handed down today, the United States Supreme Court clarified and simplified the judicial test to determine where a corporation has its principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction purposes. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2010), Justice Breyer, writing for a unanimous court, noted that the “Court of Appeals’ divergent and increasingly complex interpretations” of the principal-place-of-business provision has grown unworkable. To simplify the inquiry and provide greater certainty as to jurisdiction for both potential plaintiffs and defendants, the Court adopted the “nerve center” test as the proper inquiry to determine a corporation’s principal place of business.

Discover More @ Fulbright

This article was prepared by Jonathan S. Franklin (jfranklin@fulbright.com or 202 662 0466), Anne M. Rodgers (arodgers@fulbright.com or 713 651 3797) and Benjamin Vetter (bvetter@fulbright.com or 303 801 2720) from Fulbright’s Litigation Practice Group.

Note: Jonathan Franklin, a partner in Fulbright’s Washington, D.C., office was counsel of record for a group of amici curiae who filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging that the Court adopt the nerve center test.