EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: New Litigation Support Legal Software Review Site Launched

Monday, September 1, 2008

New Litigation Support Legal Software Review Site Launched

My friend Charles Skamser had an piece on his website that caught my attention today. His story pointed me to a newly launched software review website aimed exclusively at the litigation support industry.

As usual Charles is ahead of the curve and his blog is always an interesting read due to Charles' inquisitive nature and spot on analytic abilities. Anyway - if you are reading my blog -especially on Labor Day = well you probably would find some interesting and informative independent information on Charles web blog - "the e-discovery paradigm shift

Anyway I digress = the litigation and software review website link is below

http://litireviews.lexbe.com/index.aspx?Query=Electronic%20Discovery

Basically this is a website dedicated to offering a comprehensive collection of free reviews of legal and litigation software and other technology offered to legal and litigation professionals. With over 100, recent full-text reviews included, it is the largest free collection of legal software and technology reviews targeted to legal and litigation professionals.

LitiReview includes the software or product name, review title, author, a summary of the findings or conclusions, the publication, and year published. LitiReviews is text-searchable to allow users to find articles by applicable keywords.

Reviews in LitiReviews are organized into software or technology categories, including accounting, case management, document automation, document management, document repository, document security, electronic discovery, litigation management, office productivity, optical character recognition (OCR), practice management, time & billing, depositions & transcripts, trial presentation and server virtualization.

Software programs reviewed include Adobe Acrobat, Amicus Attorney, Caselogistix, CaseMap, Concordance, Iblaze, Isys, ImageDepot, Hotdocs, Lexbe, Livenote, Mac, Predator, Quickbooks, Sanction, Tabs3, Textmap Time Matters, Timemap, Trial Director, Workshare Protect, Worldox and Vista.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.