Link to article by Jaculin Aaron and Laura J. Lattman posted on Law.com, December 11, 2007:

During the last decade, lawyers faced with the novelty of electronic discovery have reacted in different ways. Some lawyers have mastered it, some have become reasonably conversant with it and some have just added it to the list of things they know they don’t know. However, there is an aspect of e-discovery that even the most experienced practitioners may not even know they don’t know: the complexities of e-discovery in the international setting. This article gives a brief overview of issues that can arise in connection with international e-discovery, in particular those relating to data protection regimes, the technical requirements for processing data from other countries and other issues that may arise in the collection and review process….

Link to article by Thomas Y. Allman and Kevin F. Brady posted on Law.com, December 12, 2007:

The evolution of electronic discovery has been marked by assertions that a party must preserve and produce electronic information that initially seems well beyond what would normally be considered discoverable. The first of these “cutting edge” cases, and arguably one of the most prescient, was the 1980 decision in National Union Electric v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 494 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1980), in which the court held that “common sense” required production of information in machine-readable format over an objection that the information did not exist in the precise form sought and was therefore not discoverable. The court opined that the difference between producing printouts and producing the data in computer-readable form was a “distinction without a difference.” As later explained in Daewoo Electronics Co. v. U.S., 650 F. Supp. 1003 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986), the court was “not requiring [the party] to create something new or to render exceptional assistance. It [was] simply requiring that an existing body of data be transmitted in a reasonably usable way with a modicum of cooperation.”…

Link to article posted by John J. Coughlin on Law.com, December 13, 2007:

Keeping up with the subject of electronic discovery is a lot like following the latest developments in the lives of Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan: every week a new story and never good news. But just as we can live and learn vicariously through the missteps of the rich and famous, so can we learn from the facts through which the early years of electronic discovery jurisprudence is evolving. There have been hundreds of cases officially reported and/or discussed in the mainstream media since last December, when the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, but the decisions discussed below are particularly illustrative of the most prevalent issues confronting the management, collection and production of electronically stored information (ESI)….

Link to article by Terry Sweeney posted in Byte and Switch, December 4, 2007:

SAN FRANCISCO — E-discovery continues to reshape the methods, strategies, and relationships of storage professionals within their organization.

And in truth, most storage pros are struggling with what data and documents need to be retained, the legal implications of backup versus archiving, and newly established tiers of discovery, according to Stephanie Mendelsohn, director of corporate records and electronic discovery for Genentech Inc., of South San Francisco, Calif.

Mendelsohn spoke this morning at the Storage Decisions conference here. And the discussion was a timely one, as the storage industry (okay, storage vendors) hailed the one-year anniversary of the overhaul of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure….

Link to article by Stephen Whetstone and Michael Simon posted on IndustryWeek, December 7, 2007:

A year ago, the rules that govern litigation in our federal courts were amended to require lawyers and clients to deal head on with electronically stored information (ESI). On December 1, 2006, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) went into effect. Prior to the amendments, litigants routinely ignored ESI and, operating under a doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” refrained from seeking it from their adversaries for fear they would be compelled to do the same.

But in the last few years, things changed. Government investigators and plaintiffs’ class action attorneys were not hampered by the same mutuality concerns; they had little to lose and everything to gain by aggressively pursuing ESI. So, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, Morgan Stanley, and many others were forced to turn over huge amounts of ESI under the glare of the media’s spotlight, spawning more investigations and demands for ESI….

Link to article by Howard Marks, summary by Andrew Conry-Murray posted on InformationWeek, December  1, 2007:  An information life-cycle management strategy is key to addressing expanding data volumes and regulations for data archiving and retrieval.

Information life-cycle management holds great promise for helping enterprises manage data storage from the time information is created until it’s destroyed. Unfortunately, ILM isn’t a product you can buy. Rather, it’s a constellation of policies, processes, services, and products designed to meet business goals for the data….

Article by Jerry F. Barbanel and Bruce W. Pixley, Aon Consulting, posted on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, December 2007:

With complex litigation cases becoming increasingly unwieldy due to cost and the vast amount of data requiring review, counsel is continuously looking for more efficient ways to find the “smoking guns.” In that pursuit, critical data that is stored on electronic devices other than computers may be overlooked, potentially threatening the outcome of a case.

Mobile devices, such as cellular phones and PDAs are now vital to how organizations do business. Configured to transmit and receive data as well as log activity, these mobile offices have many of the same functionalities as traditional desktops and laptops….

Article by Linda G. Sharp and Joel J. Vogel, posted on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, December 2007:

In the old days, plaintiffs would request business records from boxes in dusty warehouses. Attorneys would then review an inventory list of the boxes and pull those that were potentially relevant. Today, employees organize their own electronic data, but neither the records manager nor the IT representatives understand what each individual is really doing. This is the world of “electronically stored information” (ESI). The following article is designed to better equip you to evaluate your current environment and establish routine processes so that you are prepared the next time ESI is sought….

Article about interview with Marc Eisner, Senior Consultant to SPi Technologies, posted on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, December 2007:

The Editor interviews Marc Eisner, Senior Consultant to SPi Technologies.

Editor: Would you tell our readers a little about your professional experience?…

Article about interview with Christopher S. Kruse , President and CEO, CaseCentral, Inc., posted on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, December 2007:

CEO Chris Kruse recently met with The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel to discuss how CaseCentral reduces corporate costs, drives down risk and empowers general counsel.

Editor: Mr. Kruse, would you tell our readers something about your professional experience?…