EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: An unstoppable force: Sherry Harris and Conor Crowley Join Forces

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

An unstoppable force: Sherry Harris and Conor Crowley Join Forces

Congratulations to one of my favorite people in the E-Discovery universe. Not only is Sherry a thought leader in E-Discovery best practices; she is a natural leader and a genuinely fantastic person.

MCLEAN, Va., July 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The Law Offices of Conor R. Crowley today announces the addition of industry leader Sherry B. Harris as Senior Discovery Advisor. Sherry was most recently E-Discovery Advisor at Hunton & Williams LLP where she was a valued thought leader in all litigation areas involving technology for over 30 years. Her contributions included development and implementation of firm-wide E-Discovery Best Practices, and assembling and training a firm-wide team of nearly 100 internal e-discovery consultants to provide knowledgeable resources to the firm's clients, attorneys and staff. Sherry's background includes vast experience in document-intensive, multi-jurisdictional complex litigation and regulatory investigations. She also has a strong background in antitrust compliance, corporate records management, legal hold procedures and information lifecycle management. She has worked with corporate clients to develop defensible legal hold processes and litigation readiness plans, providing customized training programs for in-house legal departments and business units in corporations throughout the world. Sherry also has tremendous experience assisting corporations with designing and implementing standardized litigation management protocols to achieve a consistent, defensible approach to litigation management across all practice areas.
Sherry is a charter member of The Sedona Conference® Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention and Production, a member of The Sedona Conference® WG1 Steering Committee and a member of the RFP+ User Group. Sherry is co-editor of The Sedona Conference® Glossary: E-Discovery & Digital Information Management (Second Edition), and co-author of The Sedona Conference® Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discovery Vendors: Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process. She also serves on the Georgetown University Law Center E-Discovery Advisory Board, and has a long history of participation at CLE events, and involvement in pro bono activities.
Sherry can be reached at 804-513-0969 or sharris@crowleylawoffice.com
About The Law Offices of Conor R. Crowley:
The Law Offices of Conor R. Crowley brings together the expertise and experience of Conor Crowley and Sherry Harris to provide clients with an unparalleled team of thought leaders. With decades of practical experience in litigation and corporate best practices, we are uniquely equipped to provide solutions to the challenges posed by complex litigation and information management. We listen carefully to our corporate and law firm clients' concerns, issues and needs before crafting cost-effective, strategic advice in the areas of E-Discovery Readiness and Responsiveness, Records and Information Management, and International E-Discovery.
SOURCE Law Offices of Conor R. Crowley

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.