“eDiscovery and Information Governance is a dynamic and complex market. To be successful with eDiscovery projects and develop broader information governance strategies, teamwork across traditional roles is mandatory,” says James D. Shook, Esq., Director of eDiscovery and Compliance Practice at EMC. “This is our third year of sponsoring a day of thought leadership CLE sessions at LegalTech. With this year’s lineup we have brought together the best legal and technical minds to deliver best practice insights during sessions at Legal Tech in New York.”

EMC is sponsoring the following sessions for CLE credit on January 31st in Concourse E:

Harnessing Search Technology Effectively – 9:00 am – 10:00 am

Search has become a cornerstone of all legal technology, from legal research to early case assessment to document review. As search becomes more accessible, it also becomes more powerful, requiring experts in the technology to take full advantage of the available tools. There is still a gap though, as search methodologies used in different stages of a case are vastly different. Case teams need to assess what strategies must be used, engage experts in both subject matter and search technology, and be aware of potential pitfalls. This session will provide attendees an opportunity to hear from experts in the field, preparing them to tackle search more effectively in their own cases.

Speakers:

Charlie Kaupp, eDiscovery Consultant, Digital Strata, Inc.

Don C. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq., President and CEO, Falcon Discovery

Dan Brassil, Principal Consultant, H5

Kenneth Rashbaum –  Rashbaum Associates LLC

Overcoming the FUD To Bring eDiscovery In-House – 10:30 am – 11:30 am

Bringing more of the eDiscovery process in-house can result in substantial savings and better control over the process.  Yet many corporate IT and in-house counsel are afraid to assume the responsibility for the process.  Listen to a panel of experts discuss the most common concerns and how to overcome them to improve your process.

Speakers:

David Yerich, Esq., Director of eDiscovery at United HealthCare

Ian Campbell, iConect

James D. Shook, Esq., Director of Compliance and eDiscovery team EMC

Security, Hacking, and the Rise of Corporate CyberTerrorism: What every GC must Know! – 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm

 The benefits of corporate networks and the Internet, which deliver instant global communications, have accelerated the pace of business.  However, they have also created new vulnerabilities that cyber criminals, nation-states and “hacktivists” have learned to exploit.  Andrew Cohen, Esq., and Branden Williams were part of a team that responded to an advanced cyber attack on RSA in March of 2011.   In this session, you will learn the impact of advanced threats to corporate security, the impact of large scale intellectual property theft, and what every General Counsel must know to help protect corporate interests.  RSA, The Security Division of EMC, provides security, compliance and risk management solutions to organizations throughout the world including 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

Speakers:

Andrew Cohen, VP and Associate General Counsel – EMC

Branden Williams, CTO, CISSP, CISM – RSA, an EMC company

Heidi Maher, Esq., EMC – Principal, eDiscovery and Compliance Practice

The Case For Machine Coding in Document Review: A Judicial Perspective – 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm

The case for using machine coding and classification of documents in the eDiscovery review process has never been stronger.  As costs and ESI volumes continue to grow, machine coding promises faster, cheaper – and better.  Yet there remain many concerns about how to properly use these technologies, and the potential for risk when used incorrectly.  Hear what a prominent member of the Judiciary and members of the Bar have to say about the promising future – and their concerns for reaching it.

Speakers:

Honorable Andrew J. Peck, United States Magistrate Judge

Ed Larkin, Esq., Partner, Venable LLP

James D. Shook, Esq., Director of Compliance and eDiscovery team EMC

What it takes to have fun as a 30(b)6 witness – 3:15 pm – 4:15 pm

We have all heard horror stories, reviewed cases about organizations / defense teams who crashed and burned in court when they brought their ill-prepared, inarticulate, tech heads into the courtroom as “subject-matter-expert” (SME) / 30(b)6 witnesses in Federal Court on electronic records and eDiscovery matters.  Therefore, we have seen many examples of what not to do in those critical / do-or-die situations.  We at EMC thought it was about time someone showed you and explained what an example of an effective 30(b)6 witness looks like in addition, to what it took to prepare, what to do, what not to do and what was learned from the experience.  This session will employ a role-play learning method with a plaintiff as-well-as defense attorneys and our SME witness.

Speakers:

Thomas Reding, CRM

Heidi Maher, Esq.

Richard Vestuto, Esq., Vice President, Client Advisory Services, Merrill Corporation

Laws, Regulations, and the Cloud: The Confluence of eDiscovery with Pervasive Governance – 4:30 pm – 5:30 pm

Today, many organizations are looking to the Cloud for answers for controlling escalating information management costs.  However, organizations cannot just be focused on the perceived information technology infrastructure cost savings offered by the Cloud.  Organizations must be equally focused on laws, regulations and information governance issues.  If your organization has governance issues currently, then the Cloud will only exacerbate them.  Discover what the Cloud means to others and why it’s critical to place Pervasive Governance ahead of any Cloud initiative in your organization.

Speakers:

Fiona Schrader, Principle Product Manager Records Retention, Compliance, and Governance

Tom Reding, CRM, EMC – Principal eDiscovery and Compliance Practice

William O’Neil, Jr., Esq., EMC – Principal eDiscovery and Compliance Practice

RSVP and reserve your session seat @ EMC’s LegalTech Sessions

William E. O'Neil, Jr., Esq., EMC eDiscovery expert

Part II

Faster, better, cheaper was the mantra at NASA as it set goals to improve quality, efficiency and better manage costs after several setbacks…it was a way to set goals and measure success from a “top down” approach of looking at it from all perspectives and seeking to better quantify risks & rewards in various programs…expect quality, but demand efficiency!!!

Benchmarking: People, Process & Technology

Identifying all the key players in the legal & regulatory processes that request ESI (consumers) and why they need it…then find all the key players and stakeholders that identify, preserve & collect ESI and the tools currently in use to help to understand the processes and the level of effort associated with eDiscovery from an internal resource perspective as well as from the third party cost perspective…and to understand risk.

Each organization is unique…understanding who touches the process is critical…knowing this early saves resources in the long run!!

Most organizations face a mix of needs for ESI:

• Internal Audits & Board driven actions
• Regulatory Investigations
• State & Federal Litigation

Consumers of ESI may include:

• Human Resources
• Litigation Counsel
• Regulatory Affairs
• General Counsel
• Internal Audit

Personnel involved in Preservation & Collection of ESI may include:

• Security
• IT
• 3^rd Parties / Service Providers
• Custodians
• Legal Service Providers
• Outside Counsel
• Internal Counsel
• Human Resources

Understanding all these different elements of the People, Process & Technology in your eDiscovery process is the key to controlling costs & mitigating risks.

If you would like to discuss this topic further…please give me a call or send an email @ ted.oneil at emc.com.

Discover More

James D. Shook, Esq., CIPP EMC eDiscovery Expert

by James D. Shook, Esq.

This is the time of year when many make predictions for 2011.  But while we try to look forward, the reality is that as an industry, we have not yet conquered our eDiscovery challenges from 2010 – or even 2009 or earlier!  In the spirit of the season and with a nod to Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, I decided to take a Scrooge-based approach to eDiscovery.  Without further ado, I present the ghosts of eDiscovery Past, Present and Future.

eDiscovery Past

In the early days of eDiscovery, even before the amendments to the FRCP in December 2006, we all made plenty of mistakes as we learned about this challenging new area.  Many of our problems resulted from collecting and preserving electronically stored information (ESI) from backup tapes; artificially segmenting the eDiscovery process into three stages known informally as “collect stuff”, “throw stuff over the wall” and “review stuff”; and pretending that eDiscovery either was a passing fad, or just could not be as difficult as we had heard.

While the list of mistakes and challenges from the past is virtually limitless (see Ralph Losey’s recent blog entry on this issue), many of these mistakes really boiled down to a few fundamental issues:  a lack of coordination and communication between Legal and IT (and Records Management or “RM”); and a lack of basic knowledge on IT systems from people working in legal roles.

If these ghosts of eDiscovery past continue to plague you, next year resolve to:

• Have your legal team learn at least the basics about your IT infrastructure;
• Insure that Legal, IT (and RM) coordinate, communicate and interact on a regular basis; and
• Have a basic plan, prepared in advance, for what to do when eDiscovery hits.

eDiscovery Present

Over the last year, we continued to struggle with the concept of when sanctions should be awarded for eDiscovery blunders, and how we should determine the severity of those sanctions.  In fact, these are such difficult issues that there is currently disagreement even within the same jurisdiction (compare Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al., 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (Amended Order) with Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010)).

But there were several other trends that rang through loud and clear.  One of the clearest trends is that there is significant risk in relying upon employees to preserve and collect their own data for eDiscovery.  (See our “Weekend At Bernie’s” post).  While there is still no absolute prohibition, the problem with “custodian-based eDiscovery” is that employees can be self-interested or uninterested in a case, making it risky to assume that they will do what they are asked.  Even for those who are sufficiently motivated, many will still fail because they are under-educated on both legal and IT issues.  This makes it exceptionally difficult for them to determine what ESI should be retained as relevant to a case, and how to properly find and preserve that ESI.

Another clear trend is that unintentional – and even seemingly minor and understandable—eDiscovery blunders can cascade into prejudicing a case and result in severe sanctions.  (See Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010).

A trend that has been around for a while, but seems to finally be gaining momentum, is enforcing the point that litigation holds do not begin upon receipt of the first Request For Production of Documents, or even upon being served with a Complaint.  Instead, the hold duty attaches when one can reasonably anticipate litigation, which typically occurs before the data of service (and for plaintiffs, will certainly occur before filing the Complaint).  Courts are beginning to take a closer look at when a party’s preservation process actually began, so companies need to get legal informed about litigation threats so that decisions on holds can be made at the right time.

If these ghosts have the chance of haunting you, next year resolve to:

• Rely more upon your eDiscovery team of investigators and counsel, and arm them with useful technologies to complete their work.  Merely hoping that your employees are handling the preservation and collection of critical ESI is no longer a viable option;

• Review your eDiscovery processes to insure that litigation holds are integrated into your business processes.  This will insure that holds can be recognized at the appropriate time and not just after litigation has already commenced.

eDiscovery Future

There are two main roads that the ghost of eDiscovery Future can take.  The first is the obvious road of emerging and future technologies.  For 2011, emerging issues will clearly include the Cloud and social media technologies such as Facebook and Twitter, and we will certainly see some new technologies that we have not yet even worried about.

The second road in the future is more sinister, and relates to issues that we should already be aware of but have failed to adequately address because they have not yet risen to the right level.  These issues are actually riskier because we should be prepared, and mistakes with these technologies may not be viewed in a forgiving light because we should know better.  As a few examples, this group would include legal issues around international data privacy, data stored in Sharepoint repositories, and structured databases.

It is difficult to predict what you should do about the ghosts of eDiscovery Future, but consider a few possible resolutions for the new year:

• At minimum, update your ESI Map to include basic information about data that may be outside your firewall (such as outsourced Email and other Cloud technologies, Facebook, Twitter, etc.);

• If you transact business outside the U.S., understand the basics of privacy law and determine whether and how they may impact you in normal litigation matters; and

• Subscribe to a publication that will keep you updated on the latest legal and technology developments (Law Technology News and its Daily Alert are terrific, free resources).

Good luck in 2011!

The first half of 2010 saw a plethora of decisions refining e-discovery case law and building

on past trends in a rapidly-evolving field. Attorneys from Gibson Dunn provide an overview

of recent e-discovery developments, based on their analysis of 103 e-discovery decisions

issued between January 1 and June 17, 2010.

Discover More

Heidi Maher, Esq., eDiscovery Expert

the main reasons for the high cost of eDiscovery.  Vendors and outside counsel make good money helping corporations sift through massive amounts of data to separate out privileged information.  When Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was amended with the intent to mitigate this cost, litigators all over the nation rejoiced.  However, since the establishment of the rule, it has quickly become evident that the celebration may have been a little premature.

There are eight primary provisions to the rule.  The most relevant of which is 502(b) which clarifies that inadvertent disclosure does not result in waiver when the holder of the privilege “took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure” and “promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.” So how do courts define “reasonableness” within the context of eDiscovery cases?

One of the premier cases addressing this standard is the Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc. 2010 WL 1990555 (S.D. W. Va. May 18, 2010).  In this case, plaintiff Felman sued defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance for an insurance claim related to property damage and business interruption. During production, plaintiff inadvertently turned over an email that was listed on the privilege log but that the defendant believed was the “smoking gun”.  Plaintiff was unaware of the disclosure until the defendant included it as an exhibit in a motion, thereby making it a public record.  Defendant claimed waiver of privilege due to plaintiff’s negligent review before production.

The court applied the following five factor test established by Magistrate Judge Grimm in Victory Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. 250 F.R.D. 251 250 F.R.D. 251, 70 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1052 (D. Md. 2008) to determine if privilege was waived:

1. The reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure;
2. The number of inadvertent disclosures;
3. The extent of the disclosures;
4. Any delay in measures taken to rectify the disclosure; and
5. overriding interests in justice

At first glance it appeared as though the plaintiff had taken on a massive effort to prevent disclosure of privileged documents.  It used analytic tools at numerous stages to search for carefully crafted privilege search terms, conducted a thorough document by document review of potentially privileged documents, did a second electronic search of remaining documents, and compiled an extensive privilege log. The court considered the plaintiffs review and production methods in light of all of these factors and found that their efforts were in vain, partly because: “As warned in Victor Stanley, 250 F.R.D. at 257, the failure to test the reliability of keyword searches by appropriate sampling is imprudent.”

Great latitude has been given to courts to apply the reasonableness standard on a case-by- case basis to promote fairness and efficiency. Besides the lack of sampling, other factors such as: overproduction of documents of which 30% were irrelevant, the large number of inadvertent disclosures constituting more than double the amount from the Victor Stanley case, and the failure to identify the inadvertent disclosures until the defendants included it in their motion, for the court indicated a significant lapse in plaintiff’s quality control over the eDiscovery process.  As a result, the court determined that plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and determined that privilege was waived.

The takeaway lesson is that Rule 502 has a lot of maneuvering room.  It may give litigators a false sense of security that should they inadvertently produce privilege information, that they can easily claw it back.  However, this case has shown that even with herculean efforts it is not so easy to put the cat back in the bag.  That’s why it would be prudent to document an agreement with opposing counsel at the beginning of the case.  This agreement would state that neither side will raise the reasonability argument, or that the procedure around production has been agreed to as reasonable.  It would be even better to memorialize this agreement in a court order to prohibit any future posturing by opposing counsel.

DISCOVER MORE

Please join Arraya Solutions and EMC for a lunch-and-learn seminar focused on enabling your organization to proactively manage content for litigation readiness, risk mitigation, operational governance, and content reuse.

Learn how EMC SourceOne eDiscovery products help you create repeatable eDiscovery processes – while providing access, defensible collection results, and chain of custody for all electronically stored information.
Join your colleagues as we explore innovative solutions that will enable you to:

• Respond quickly, accurately, and defensibly to electronic discovery demands
• Conduct early case assessments to determine case merit and legal strategies
• Reduce eDiscovery costs through a systematic process for identifying and retaining information on a proactive basis
• Through a single discovery engine, search e-mail, file shares, content management systems, and desktops

14-Sep-2010 11:00 AM – 4:00 PM EST
Downingtown Country Club 93 Country Club Drive Downingtown, PA 19335

Register Today

Randolph A. Kahn, Esq., Kahn Consulting	James D. Shook, Esq., EMC eDiscovery expert and Attorney

Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Time: 10:00 AM Pacific

EMC is proud to bring you this special webinar focused on how you should think about handling eDiscovery in 2011. Our esteemed guest speaker, Randolph A. Kahn, Esq., is well known in the legal/compliance circles and brings a wealth of knowledge on eDiscovery.

He will be discussing current trends in eDiscovery that will dictate how you perform eDiscovery in 2011, risks associated with current practices/tools/processes and best practices to consider adopting in order to get ahead of your eDiscovery woes. Joining him in this discussion will be our in-house attorney, James D. Shook, Esq., who too brings tremendous eDiscovery knowledge to the event.

Register Today, as seating is limited for this premium webinar.

All attendees will be entered into our drawing for a new iPad.

Discover More

Gain autonomy and receive improved eDiscovery guidance

James D. Shook, Esq., CIPP EMC eDiscovery Expert

In today’s economic environment, companies deploying new technology have to show not just that they will be better and faster, but also just how much faster and better so that they can justify the expense.  Part of the buying process frequently involves gathering data on how much it costs to handle a business process in the current environment, how much can be saved with improvements, and establishing that the savings will justify the cost of the improvement (and frequently, how long it will take to do so).  Most companies refer to this process with the shorthand acronym of “ROI” or “return on investment”.  (In financial circles, ROI is actually a more complex analysis, but it’s still a good acronym for our purposes).

For companies that are looking to bring more of their eDiscovery process in-house, the ROI process can be difficult.  While we intuitively know that we can save money and cut risk with a leading eDiscovery solution, it can be tough to show that quantitatively because financial information is usually not readily available.  Even within the legal department, the cost of eDiscovery is frequently not well-known.  Often, time and money spent on eDiscovery issues is buried with other tasks in time entries from outside counsel; internal costs are generally not tracked at all; and payments to third-party processes are passed through (or marked up) by outside counsel and difficult to locate.

The benefits can also be difficult to calculate.  For example, many companies have poor eDiscovery processes (what we term “Faux eDiscovery“), where they wrongly or negligently ignore data sources and/or sound eDiscovery processes.  Faux eDiscovery can actually be very inexpensive — the real “cost” is in the risk with being caught and sanctioned.  But risk is difficult to quantify.  The result is that some companies trying to improve their eDiscovery processes may actually find a negative ROI (i.e. we only spend $10,000 per litigation now but it will cost us $50,000 to do it right) because they fail to identify or quantify the real ROI — their reduction in risk by handling eDiscovery properly.

If you are putting together an ROI analysis for bringing eDiscovery in-house, here are a few things to consider:

The general statistics available about eDiscovery costs are startling.  It’s well-established that having legal professionals review data – one of the later steps in the eDiscovery process — is expensive, with $18,750 per gigabyte a well-accepted number.  (Gartner, Reducing the Cost and Risk of EDiscovery in 2009, 1/9/2009 at 6).  Over the last several years, the average cost of discovery per case ranged from $621,880 to $2,993,567 (Litigation Cost Survey at 3).  And as noted earlier, Gartner advised an IT eDiscovery budget of $500,000 for a modestly sized case.    (Gartner, Reducing the Cost and Risk of EDiscovery, at 5).

Cutting through the noise, Gartner notes that many companies report a full return on their investment in an eDiscovery solution within 3 to 6 months — or within a single large case.  (Gartner, Marketscope for E-Discovery Software Product Vendors, 12/21/2009 at 2).  While these high-level facts alone may not be enough to convince anyone who requires a detailed ROI, they can help to set the stage for acceptance and also tend to strike a nerve with many C-level executives.

Undertake basic investigation on costs.  Talk to the legal department about how many “cases” they handle in each month (or year), being sure to include internal investigations and employment claims, regulatory inquiries and other matters where data is being preserved, collected and/or processed — not just “lawsuits”.  Ask them if they have information about amounts paid to outside service providers (perhaps through their law firm) for eDiscovery services.  Also check with the people who handle backups and email within the IT department — since different groups within legal may be asking them for help, they may actually have the best view of this work, and could even have hired an outside vendor to handle some eDiscovery-related work.  IT wil generally know whether the company has had to purchase tape processing equipment, additional storage or other non-standard equipment to help the lawyers with eDiscovery.

Check on soft-costs, too.  Most IT departments are only too ready and able to tell someone (anyone!) how much time they have devoted to eDiscovery tasks.  Frequently groups of 2-3 staffers can be assigned full-time or better for weeks or months on a medium or large case.  Without a chargeback model, legal might not even be aware of the massive undertaking to help them.

You may only be able to gather information on a few cases.  In that scenario, try to figure out whether it’s legitimate to extend the information out across the full volume of cases:  were these cases representative of what’s happening?  Do our cases tend to be similar or repeatable?  Do I have a good sampel?  When detailed information is not available — and usually it’s not — your goal is to get an understanding of the magnitude of the spend, and not necessarily the exact dollar amount.

There are a variety of ways in which you can begin to assess the savings that an eDiscovery solution will bring to the company.  In many cases, after purchasing a solution the incremental costs fo reach case will be almost nothing.  The better systems will enable custodian notification, search, preservation, collection and processing within the platform, so that investigators can efficiently handle these tasks.  This is really the purpose of the ROI analysis — case-by-case handling costs should be very small, because the expense is up-front in the purchase and deployment of the solution.

One area where the savings can be significant, but still substantial, is with “eyes-on” legal review.  An efficiently deployed system will help to minimize the amount of data collected, processed and eventually reviewed; but the review volumes can still be large.  And the hourly costs of review will be the same (although you can get some savings from de-duplication, clustering, email threading, etc.).  Still, we routinely see 50%+ savings in review based on the reduction in volume for efficient collection and culling.

You may decide that risk is too difficult or political to calculate as part of the ROI.  Or you may decide that it’s a necessary component that you must include.  Both approaches can be effective.

If you decide not to calculate a specific value for risk, you should still consider some risk analysis as part of your process, even as merely a “plus” factor to your overall analysis.  In doing this, take note of recent cases where companies have paid sanctions, had their case compromised and/or faced a backlash in the press (and potentially from shareholders).  You may not have a value for that risk, but the message will resonate with management.

If you do calculate risk, consider a conservative approach and factor in the probability of a sanction.  For example, you might decide that a severe sanction would compromise your ability to effectively defend (or prosecute) a case, and a larger case can be worth $5,000,000.  If you estimate a 10% chance of being sanctioned, you could take the resulting product ($5,000,000 x 10% = $500,000) as a basis for your risk value.  Remember that this risk amount would apply to each such case; so while the risk amount for a sanction on a smaller case might seem low (let’s say $20,000), it would be applied over a far larger number of cases.  It adds up!

Also remember that sanctions costs can exceed the entire estimated value of a case.  There have been many cases where shoddy eDiscovery processes have resulted in expensive remediation efforts — legal fees in determining what went wrong and how to fix it (and fending off motions for sanctions), repeating earlier work or being forced to use extraordinary efforts such as tape restoration.  So even a $500,000 case with eDiscovery problems could easily require more than the case value to try to “fix”.  (And don’t let anyone argue that you could always just write a check to settle the case.  Opposing counsel may have valued the case at a higher value than you, and once they realize that you are in trouble, it could be tough to negotiate a fair settlement).

Sometimes a simple model is better.  We have used extremely complex ROI models that were spot-on, but difficult to explain, and ultimately were ignored. We have also seen very simple models — “an eDiscovery solution will save us 50% in review costs, and last year review costs were $5M” — that have carried the day.  Hopefully, as you work on your ROI project, you’ll uncover the method that will best establish your case.  Until then, consider using a scenario-based approach (small case, medium case, large case), develop your facts for each one, and extrapolate the costs across the volumes that you expect to see each year.

DISCOVER MORE

J. David Morris, EMC SourceOne eDiscovery - Kazeon

The SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon and SourceOne File Management pods were high profile attractions this year. eDiscovery demonstrations ran nonstop, as IT and Legal professionals crowded the booth to see the new features and functionality of the Kazeon suite and its integration with EMC’s Documentum, Celerra, and Data Domain products. The Kazeon File Management pod was a consistent hit throughout the show with attendees staying up to an hour after the show floor closed to see demonstrations and ask questions. The power which the Kazeon eDiscovery and File Management tool suite delivers, astounded IT and Legal professionals alike.

The file visibility, classification, migration, remediation, reconciliation, extraction, policy creation and enforcement, file retraction and deduplication capabilities comprise the first complete tool suite of its kind which allows IT managers the ability to optimize their storage assets, as well as deliver auditable governance and compliance capabilities. Legal professionals also realized the importance of Kazeon’s File Management impact on eDiscovery, as it delivers the tools corporate IT professionals need to deploy and enforce Information Management policies to provide an auditable chain of custody and defensible compliance and governance processes. Attorneys and paralegals found the new streamlined eDiscovery case management and workflow user interface enhancements delivered significant time savings.

“The capabilities of Kazeon File Management and Kazeon eDiscovery dovetails with George Socha, Esq., and the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) group’s new project on information management. The Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) expands the information management segment of the EDRM to include multiple stakeholders, information value and processes,” says Karthik Kannan, Sr. Director of EMC eDiscovery. “The IMRM delivers the conceptual framework for IT, Legal and Business stakeholders to discuss information management and eDiscovery to optimize and balance regulatory obligations against business needs. The knowledge gained by participating in both the EDRM and IMRM working groups has proven instrumental in EMC SourceOne eDiscovery – Kazeon product development and improvements. “

Discover More!

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.