EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: ReadyPrint 1.1 released

Monday, April 20, 2009

ReadyPrint 1.1 released

RICHMOND, VA (April 16, 2009) – Compiled Services, the company behind the load file verification and conversion tool ReadyConvert, is pleased to release a new version of ReadyPrint. ReadyPrint streamlines the document printing process for service providers and law firms alike.

ReadyPrint allows litigation support professionals to print directly from image folders or by utilizing industry standard load files. New to version 1.1, users can now easily print metadata on custom folder and document separator sheets to help organize and identify documents.

Designed with high speed printing in mind, ReadyPrint combines documents by a set number of pages to reduce the overall printer cycle time, while maintaining folder and document sheets.

ReadyPrint handles industry standard load files, including Summation, Concordance, IPRO and EDRM XML. Additionally, ReadyPrint supports most common image formats, including PDF, TIF and JPG files.

ReadyPrint benefits litigation support professionals in many ways:

• Print single-page and multi-page images,
• Design and preview folder and cover sheets containing metadata fields,
• Print document cover sheets separate from documents,
• Designate up to three paper trays allowing different color separator sheets,
• Print common image formats, including TIF, PDF and JPG files,
• Send documents in groups to allow for high speed printing,
• Auto-rotate landscape images,
• Verify page compression and identify color documents before printing and,
• Track the number of documents, pages, folder and cover sheets printed.

To get started, try our fully functioning 14-day trial by visiting http://compiledserv ices.com/ readyprint/ . To learn more about ReadyPrint and how it can benefit your firm, contact our sales team at sales@compiledservi ces.com today.

---
Compiled Services
http://www.compiled services. com

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.