EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: ReadySuite 3.5 Released: Litigation Supports' Little Gem

Saturday, September 3, 2011

ReadySuite 3.5 Released: Litigation Supports' Little Gem

We’re excited to release new features, enhancements, and fixes to ReadySuite – ourspecialized bundle of utilities for handling various documents and imaging tasks.

Features include a new ‘Check Resources’ wizard, which allows you to re-check the integrity of your documents after the import process. In addition, you can identify the pages in a document that are color or blank using our sophisticated object detection algorithm. Also, we added the ability to detect text in PDF documents, useful for determining files that may need to be OCRed.

Further, we’ve added the ability to export text along with your images using the ‘Export Documents’ wizard. Various options will allow you to roll single-page text to multi-page, word wrap lines at a specified column, force output file encoding to ASCII or UTF-8, and create placeholder text files for documents with no text.

Highlighted on our development blog are some changes we’ve made to the delimited text import process. Next week, we’ll post more updates outlining other important changes made, including the new ‘Batch Manager’, for updating paths of documents already imported.

Our pricing structure has also slightly changed – which primarily affects those using the functionality provided in ReadyConvert. We will now be pricing ReadyConvert with our standard support package at $79.95. If you’d like to upgrade to ReadySuite, you can purchase the entire package at $499.95 with our standard support package or for $579.95 with our priority support package.

To learn about other features provided in ReadySuite, follow our product page. Additionally, you may get started with ReadySuite by downloading our 14-day trial or by contacting oursales staff.

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.