Cost Shifting and Fee Splitting in Electronic Discovery
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Listen to Karl Schieneman, Director of Analytics and Review with JurInnov talk about how cost shifting and cost collaboration are occurring in electronic discovery. We have an outstanding panel for today’s show as the Honorable James C. Francis, IV, a magistrate Judge from the S.D. of NY, Robert W. Trenchard, the chair of Wilmer Hale’s E-Discovery Committee, and Megan Jones a nationally recognized electronic expert from Hausfeld, LLP who represents claimants in antitrust litigation discuss trends that involve cost shifting. Today’s show talks about the mechanics of cost shifting but we also delve into how new technologies such as concept searching can be addressed in meet and confers to reduce costs. Given the different perspectives, a variety of opinions will be shared including how important the Proclamation Collaboration can be to reducing cost shifting arguments to real disputes.
Recorded 09/01/2010
- Federal Trade Commission Issues Final Changes to Agency Procedure
- Facing Fines for Contempt, Twitter Produces Defendant's Tweets
- Court Finds Broad Requests for Social Media Content Fail to Uphold Rule 34(b)(1)(A)'s "Reasonable Particularity" Requirement, Denies Motion to Compel (in part)
- Inadvertent Production Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege as to 347 Pages of Emails
- Court Sees "No Principled Reason to Articulate Different Standards for the Discoverability of Communications through Email, Text Message, or Social Media Platforms."
- Court Shifts Discovery Costs to Plaintiffs "At Least Until the Class Action Determination is Made"
- In Kleen Products Litigation, Parties Stipulate that Predictive Coding is Not Required At This Time
- Second Circuit Rejects "the Notion that a Failure to Institute a 'Litigation Hold' Constitutes Gross Negligence Per Se"
- Establishing an Adequate Search & Why "Custodians [Cannot] be Trusted to Run Effective Searches of Their Own Files"
- Failure to Disable Auto-Delete and To Follow Up with Recipients of Litigation Hold Results in Adverse Inference