Brought to you free by Berdon LLP
Daniel M. Braude and Daniel E. Lust of Wilson Elser write: Defendants can and should use photos, tweets, vines, snaps, emojis and whatever else can be pulled from a plaintiff’s social media trail to potentially discredit the plaintiff and demonstrate that alleged damages are not based in reality. But are defense attorneys today properly digging through social media postings, or are they just scratching the surface?
Christopher C. O’Brien of Xerox Legal Business Services writes: Multi-language reviews are notoriously complicated. So until Brexit becomes more of a reality and can guide data privacy laws, understanding the impact foreign language will have on e-discovery can make legal matters more compliant and cost-effective.
Brian Fox, Douglas Bloom and Cat Casey of PwC write: When it comes to investigations into the theft of IP, the use of e-discovery tools as part of the investigation itself may significantly reduce the time required to uncover or rule out suspected bad behavior, while helping companies control the cost of what appears to be an increasingly common event.
Christopher Jagoe and Thomas Fleming of Kirkland & Ellis discuss e-discovery custodians, writing: Employing a custodian-based system for parsing electronic discovery demands that the requesting party ensure that the producing party has identified all of the “non-custodial”-based data sources likely to contain relevant information.
Ronald J. Hedges and Kristen B. Weil of Dentons take a look at various decisions to examine the issues litigators must take into account when confronted with encrypted evidence in civil proceedings.