"Controlling Discovery Costs ... 'What's in your toolbox?'"

"This week Corporate Counsel from around the world will gather in Boston at the ACC Annual Meeting (10/18 – 21) to discuss trends related to “bringing control back in-house to the GC” by managing cost associated with outside counsel and the cost of discovery (specifically ediscovery). There are expected to be 3000 plus attendees over the course of the week and industry technology providers will be lining the convention halls and hotel lobby’s ready to throw the kitchen sink at passer-by’s....It is a fact that using Early Case Assessment (ECA) technology will reduce the overall cost of discovery and the litigation lifecycle. The reduced cost is directly related to lowering the amount of data for review by outside counsel. The expense of discovery is typically front loaded in the sense that identification of data for review continues to be based on the total uncompressed size of ESI collected at the onset of discovery. This is typically charged by the Gigabyte. Ironically most if not all ECA software providers and vendors know beforehand that over 60% of the ESI collected will be non-relevant to the Request for Discovery or just junk."

From blog Managing The Litigation Lifecycle. For full post, click here.

eMag Solutions now offers eMag PreVu 3.0, the latest version of eMag's web-based data management portal to sort, search and filter electronically stored information (ESI) as well as manage early stage workflow. This product provides the ability to efficiently cull large data sets prior to loading into an active archive, review tool or other repository. Enhancements include advanced searching options, the ability to group and tag files, increased options for filtering, as well as extensive reporting capabilities.  Another key aspect of PreVu 3.0 is its ability to facilitate cross-border, multi-national collections. Clients are able to utilize the hosted application in conjunction with eMag's UK processing facilities and international on-site services to accommodate international data protection and privacy laws.

Visit us at booth #335 at ACC Boston to talk with one of our representatives or click here for more information.

This story was originally published on Gawker.com.  For the original article, please click here.

This is a pretty interesting read.  It has an air of conspiracy to it, and you can make up your own mind if you buy into that, but it does illustrate how easy it is to lose or destroy files by accident.  Heck, even the FBI can goof up every now and again.  Though, I do have to agree with the author on one point: it stands to reason that files on Walter Cronkite, America's most trusted man, would have been marked "Do Not Shred."

The Story Behind Walter Cronkite's Destroyed FBI File

"Last month, we found out the FBI destroyed a file on Walter Cronkite despite its obligation to retain historically significant records. Gawker has learned that the file involved an extortion investigation. What is it with CBS luminaries and extortion, anyway?

The revelation that the FBI had destroyed its records on Cronkite in 2007 came in response to Freedom of Information Act requests sent in after his death in July (everybody FOIAs the FBI files of public figures after they die, because dead people don't have privacy rights and the FBI must turn them over). The bureau routinely destroys files, but it's supposed to hold on to records that may have historical value—and Walter Cronkite certainly qualifies as a historical figure.

We filed a FOIA request to find out everything we could about the destroyed file—and got denied. But then USA Today piped up with a story on Cronkite's disappearing paper trail, and lo and behold, the bureau reconsidered and we got a packet in the mail with some pages (embedded below) indicating both the date of the file—it was opened in January 1974—and its number in the FBI's filing system. From that number—9-57023—we can deduce that it was an extortion investigation, because the first number corresponds to the bureau's code system for classifying crimes. A "9" means "Extortion, Extortion — Racial Matters, [and] Extortion — Nuclear."

So there you have it! Cronkite's name came up in a 1974 extortion investigation, and the FBI destroyed the file. Was Cronkite himself the victim? We don't know, but it appears from a screen printout from a search of the FBI's filing system turned over by the bureau that Cronkite was one of three subjects of the file (the other two names are redacted).

Bill Carter, an FBI spokesman, says Cronkite's name merely came up in the missing file, that he wasn't the subject of it, and that it had no historical value. Not to get too much further into the weeds here than we already are, but Carter admits that he has no idea how he knows that—"That's my understanding from records management," he says, referring to the FBI's division for handling FOIA requests. The problem is, if there is information somewhere that confirms whether or not Cronkite was indeed the subject of the missing file, and how tangential or central he was to its contents, we should have it, since we FOIA'd those records and the FBI says it has turned over everything it found. So if Carter knows something we don't about that file—e.g., whether or not Cronkite was the subject—it means the bureau is holding out on us. All this would have been much simpler and less confusing if they had simply not destroyed the file.

We called CBS News and Cronkite's son Chip to see if anyone recalled an extortion attempt against Cronkite in the 1970s; a CBS News spokesman declined to comment, and Chip Cronkite didn't return a phone call.

The FBI's Carter also says the bureau has "at least two or three" other files on Cronkite that it is currently processing for release. That was news to us, since the bureau's Records Management Division told us back when we first got news of the file's destruction that it was the only thing they had on Cronkite. But a "search slip" released by the bureau to us seems to back Carter up, mentioning at least one other file in which Cronkite's name appeared. That file's number begins with 145, which is code for "Interstate Transportation of Obscene Matter." You can bet we'll be FOIAing that one.

UPDATE: Chip Cronkite did call us back to say he has no knowledge of any extortion plots, but looks forward to hearing about anything else we find, 'obscene or otherwise.'"

Click here for images of the Cronkite files.

While wading through the tons of Google Alerts I get each morning, I came across what has to be one of the best thought out and best written articles on ediscovery's costs and its impact on litigation.  I've read through quite a few articles on this subject, but none so thorough as this article; it's a real treat.  I won't bother trying to write a summary, as the second paragraph of the article itself actually sums it up perfectly:

"This article proposes a simple measure to rebalance the risks and rewards for parties involved in civil litigation, while preventing the potential abuse of e-discovery to extract nuisance settlements from defendants. Specifically, this article argues that all e-discovery should be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff agrees to reimburse the defendant for all e-discovery costs in the event that the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted."

For the full article at Law.com, please click here.

Lawyers Get YouTube-Style Site

by Douglas S. Malan (Connecticut Law Tribune)

"When it comes to searching for lawyers, Alabama trial attorney Lew Garrison believes people need more information than what they get from directories that simply list names of lawyers.

Potential clients need to learn more about the personal side of the lawyer, as they would when having a conversation, Garrison said. To help make those introductions, Garrison launched a Web site called LegalTube that serves as a video directory and lawyer-search resource.

The Web site went live on Sept. 1 after about four months of development."

You know, this sounds a lot like those video dating services that were popular back in the 80's and 90's.....

I kid!  Having checked out the site, my thought is that this a great way to give a great impression.  Here, a lawyer has the ability to speak, literally, directly to a potential client in a way that just isn't possible with yellow page listings and ads on legal sites.  People definitely want a lawyer that is book smart, but they also want someone that is human; someone with whom they can communicate.  Of course, the flip side is that you can't hide behind a billboard or other flat advertisement.  If you are not a good communicator, that will be abundantly clear when in front of the camera.  Bad for you, good for the person who gets the chance to 'try before they buy'.

I love that everyday I learn that the internet can be used for interesting things that aren't just porn.

For the full article on Law.com, click here.