EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: Ready Suite adds Trial Director Support

Monday, January 18, 2010

Ready Suite adds Trial Director Support

ReadySuite 3.1 is now available, including minor bug fixes, enhancements and new Trial Director support.

Using ReadySuite, you can now import a Trial Director load file (OLL) and export it to any of the supported formats. As with other supported formats, verification options like checking all referenced files exist can be ran against the OLL file. Adding support for the OLL format lets us provide a neat package for preparing your images and OLE records for trial. As described in an earlier post, ReadySuite supports numbering exhibits for trial and exporting multi-page images to single page (tiff/jpeg).

We’ve made some significant enhancements to the Import Delimited Text wizard, adding the ability to automatically detect the qualifier, delimiter and file encoding. If the detection fails, you can still manually specify the correct settings or choose from a list of common combination’s. Additionally, we’ve incorporated support for reading tab-separated files (tsv) with a bit more ease.

Additional options have been added to the endorse and stamping process. Originally, users were given the option to add white space to the top and bottom of pages only. We’ve now included the ability to add more white space to the left and right side of pages. This is an important option to have as endorsements can run vertically down and up a page.

Along with more control over added white space, you can now specify if you want to maintain the original page size or allow the page size to be extended. For example, if you’re adding 0.5” to a page that is already 8.5” x 11”, you can choose to keep it at the original size or allow it to extend to 8.5” x 11.5”. Other options now allow you to adjust the margins in each of the nine quadrants, allowing endorsements to be closer or further from the edge.

Lastly, we’ve updated the export process to allow images to be endorsed on the fly. Previously, the endorse process would override an existing image set.

Head over to the download page to check out these new features and let us know what you’d like to see added or changed in a future release using the comments box below.

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.