Court Orders OCR of Scanned Paper Documents, or Don’t Go to Court Claiming OCR will Cost $200,000

“OCR, while perhaps not absolutely necessary to litigation, is a tool that greatly decreases the time and effort counsel must invest in searching and examining documents. Presumably, each party would perform the OCR process in a cost-effective manner to minimize their costs. Requiring the parties to incur this cost, when[…]

Read more

Whose Search Term is it Anyway?

In Spieker v. Cherokee, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88103 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008), the parties became entangled in a dispute over who created search terms for a set of specific discovery requests.  The Plaintiff had served the Defendant with specifically defined Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 requests[…]

Read more

Production of Text Messages Protocol

The sensitivity courts are showing to text messages and public employees’ reasonable expectation of privacy has been very impressive.  This sensitivity is evident in cases such as Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., which found that a police officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his messages, due[…]

Read more

Ethics of e-Discovery (or, Teaching Lawyers Ballet)

“Watching an incompetent lawyer is like watching a clumsy ballerina.”  Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, February 4, 2009  Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola’s keynote at Legal Tech 2009 had a call to action for lawyers to have certifications and standards of competence regarding technology.  In light of how everyday life[…]

Read more

Discovery Production Workflow: Lessons from Magistrate Judges Facciola & Grimm

In my prior posting Playing with Fire: Producing ESI as Paper we looked at the dangers of producing ESI as paper.  In addition to the legal analysis, Judge Facciola outlined a workflow for the parties in Covad Communications Company v. Revonet, Inc. The Defendants represented to the Court that it[…]

Read more