Photo of Robert Brownstone

Robert D. Brownstone is the Technology & eDiscovery Counsel and Chair of the Electronic Information Management Group (EIM) Practice Group at Fenwick & West LLP, a national firm with a special mission and headquartered in Silicon Valley. Bob advises clients on electronic discovery, EIM, retention/ destruction, information-security, privacy and social-media.

A dynamic nationwide speaker and prolific writer on many law-and-technology issues, Bob is frequently quoted in the press as an expert on electronic information. He teaches Electronic Discovery Law & Process annually at the University of San Francisco (USF) and University of Puerto Rico (UPR) Schools of Law and has also taught it at Santa Clara U. (SCU) School of Law.

Now in his 27th year as a lawyer, Bob is a member of four state bars and serves on the Advisory Board of the National Employment Law Institute (NELI). To learn more, see Bob’s full bio and extensive bibliography.

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

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).

Of course, if you can implement a more high tech eSignatures regime, do so. 

For examples of available platforms, see the “Vendors” links in my eSignatures Bibliography.

In any event, here is a lower tech method  . . .

Continue Reading Adobe Acrobat Tech Tip — Inserting Scanned Signature Page(s) into an Agreement — a Low-Tech eSignatures Regime