Grappling with the delays and discovery motions, courts have fashioned more creative discovery processes. One such mechanism is the “quick-peek” agreement. Viewed as a mechanism for parties to exchange data quickly without the fear of waiving privilege or its subject matter, courts started to consider the mandatory use of the quick-peek to streamline discovery in 2014.
Electronic discovery gets a bad rap. Most lawyers find it unappetizing, high risk, and unglamorous. This perspective, however, overlooks a key litigation opportunity: developing e-discovery strategy hand in hand with trial strategy. It’s the best approach for achieving solid results for your clients.
A federal or state regulator, such as the SEC or a state attorney general, sends a company a preservation notice stating that it believes the company may possess “documents” relevant to an ongoing investigation and requests that the company “reasonably” preserve such evidence until further notice. How should the company respond?
Years after Judge Andrew Peck declared it to be “black letter law” in ‘Rio Tinto’, technology-assisted review has finally entered the mainstream among a growing suite of technology-driven e-discovery tools. It is taking a bit longer, however, for practitioners to fully recognize that document review over large data populations is an information retrieval task.
Privilege logs are loathed by the attorneys who create them, the judges who review them, and the clients who pay for them. And the only thing worse than creating a privilege log is re-creating a privilege log. While we can’t promise a pain-free process, an organized approach upfront will help avoid this judicially-mandated infliction of pain.