Just posted an updated version of my “Nine Lives of Email” list, which I wrote in 2007.

The original impetus was this AP article in which I had been quoted about missing White House emails during George W. Bush’s administration.  See Anick Jesdanun, “White House e-mail recovery not trivial“, AP, April 2007.   In that context , a couple years later it turned out I correctly diagnosed that the emails would be found on back-up media.   See Pete Yost, 22 million missing Bush White House e-mails found“, AP, December 2009.

The instigation to update this list was the current decade’s expansion of message storage locations, including into Slack, Salesforce and so many other 21st Century collaboration and communication platforms.

Even before sending a message or posting social media content, you should still assume you will be writing to the whole world.  For the quickest “Netiquette” lesson in captivity, see the 2019  Mueller era version of the Green Eggs and Ham “Multiple Audiences” Test originally created by my colleague Mark Ostrau and tweaked by me over the years.

Let’s be careful out there !

Technology Assisted Review (TAR) / Predictive Coding — New Decision

Thanks to Hon. (Ret.)  Andrew J. Peck, now Senior Counsel at DLA Piper, I just learned of a hot-off-the-presses (yesterday) Technology Assisted Review decision by the Utah federal district court.

For a quote from, and link to, the Entrata decision, check out the recent updates to the TAR / Predictive Coding Library I maintain at this blog site.

And while you’re there, you’ll see another new link — to another predictive coding online resource maintained for CTRL by Driven, Inc.’s Phil Favro.

EU GDPR eDiscovery — Top Ten Tips for Litigators

by Robert Brownstone and Tyler Newby 
(with thanks to Shannon Turner and Sandra Pomeroy)

NOT LEGAL ADVICE.  This non-exhaustive Letterman-style list is to help you spot the GDPR’s potential impacts on data collection and production in litigation involving EU persons

Continue Reading EU GDPR eDiscovery — Top Ten Tips for Litigators

Hi all.    Exterro has recently published what looks like a fine overview of the eDiscovery process, “The Basics of E-Discovery Guide.”  It describes a wide range of topics in easily digestible chunks.

Sprinkled throughout are quotes from various folks in the eDiscovery field.  Yours truly is one of those people.  My snippet is at the very bottom of Chapter 1, “Process“.

The Guide is also downloadable in .pdf form.

Happy reading . . . .

Introduction Now that you’ve likely had your fill of turkey sandwiches, turkey salad, turkey soup and the like, there is a new development on which to focus.  On midnight December 1, 2015 the eDiscovery-related Federal Rules of Civil Procedure changed for the first time since their adoption exactly nine years ago. The changes fall into three categories:

Continue Reading ESI & eDiscovery FRCP Changes @ 12/1/15 — While You Were Leftover-Eating

Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Criminal Prosecutions — a Library

Check out the new SOX Obstruction of Justice Resources Page now live at <https://www.itlawtoday.com/sarbanes-oxley-sox-criminal-prosecutions-a-library/>.

Let me know of additional links to other statutes, decisions, articles, etc.

And let’s be careful out there . . . . .

Check out the following items issued this week by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck in Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale S.A., No. 14 Civ. 3042 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y):

Both are discussed in this hot off the presses article by SeanDoherty in Law Technology News:  Federal Court Approves Parties’ Technology-Assisted Review Protocol, LTN (3/4/15) (“New York district court approves TAR process agreed to by parties, but acknowledges the protocol used may not apply to all TAR cases.”)

Also, in general, be sure to check out my now-updated TAR and Predictive Coding Library.

In an odd electronic signature (eSignature) context, on December 30, 2014 a California appellate court reversed a trial court’s upholding of a settlement agreement based on a typewritten name in an email string.    See J.B.B. Investment Partners v. Fair, 2014 WL 7421609 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 12/30/14).

The circumstances made clear to the appeals court that the parties were anticipating a wet signature on a line on the email attachment; and the gist of the string was that there had not been an expressed intent to formalize the settlement agreement.   In part, the J.B.B. court interepreted the California version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

However, this recent California decision did cite with approval other states’ decisions holding that “names typed at the end of e-mails can be electronic signatures.” (emphasis added).

To learn more about eSignatures law and technology, please visit my eSignatures Bibliography (online library).