Are Supermarket Bag Boys Smarter than many Litigators?
September 23, 2009
A supermarket bag boy will ask you if you want paper or plastic before they bag your groceries, not after. By contrast, many litigators today do not ask about form of production, paper or plastic, before they produce ESI. Instead, they just pack the information in the form that they want to produce, usually paper.
They think this gives them an advantage over the requesting party for many reasons, but primarily because of metadata. They do not understand metadata found in original native files produced on plastic CDS, they only fear it. But they do know that if they produce paper printouts of computer files, they can hide their client's metadata. Thus they want to deny their adversary metadata in a kind of knee-jerk reaction.
In spite of the much heralded 2006 Federal Rule Amendments, this don't ask, don't tell strategy is still prevailant in American courts. Most litigators do not comply with the dictates and intent of Rule 26(f) FRCP and discuss this and other e-discovery issues at the mandatory attorney conference. When it comes to e-discovery, they put the bags on their head.
For more on this topic and a review of five recent cases that help make these points, see my blog this week: Paper or Plastic? The Wisdom of Supermarket Bag Boys and the Need for Local Rules. I conclude the commentary with a suggestion for a local rule requiring attorneys to make specific reports on ESI in their Rue 26(f) case management report.
The Death of Forensic Imaging – Part II
September 21, 2009
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the imminent death of forensic imaging. Some in the electronic discovery industry would say it’s already here.
This week, I’d like to build on the previous conversation with readers and write about one of the replacement vehicles for forensic imaging: so-called live file extraction, which goes by many names. Some call it live forensic data acquisition. Others call it live data extraction. They all mean essentially the same thing, though live file extraction is the term most used by IT professionals.
Make no mistake: Traditional forensic imaging is the vastly preferred method for nearly all of the computer forensics work associated with e-discovery. You just can’t beat bit-for-bit electronic copies for safety, reliability, accessibility, portability and bitrate transfer speeds.
If not for the disproportionate growth of storage size versus data transfer rates, processing power and memory, we would still be working from bit-for-bit images taken from offline electronic storage media. Live file extraction would be limited to computer forensics investigations where whole disk encryption or volatile (e.g., RAM) activity is an issue.
Live file extraction is a term used to describe the application of computer forensics against data – usually hard drives – still connected to a controlling central processing unit. In other words, the computer, appliance or accessory is powered on and operational. How “operational” depends on the technical aspects of the target, any litigation hold strategies in place and the nature of the investigation.
If the target is an online retailer’s network, the network is still taking orders and processing data while forensic activity proceeds in the background. If the target is a delivery vehicle’s GPS system, the vehicle is probably parked but the GPS unit continues to overwrite internal log entries with positional data.
If the target is a Blackberry, the device is on but its radio receiver is, if the investigation allows, turned off. Desktops and laptops, from which data is being harvested in a non-adversarial process, may actually have thin clients onboard which use idle CPU time to search for delimited files or file types and await opportunities to transmit collected files to a mapped evidence collection drive or other destination.
The largest apparent advantage of live file extraction is that it does not require a producing party to shut down critical systems while a forensic investigation or extraction is underway. On the surface, this is appealing because it offers the prospect of a no fuss approach to e-discovery. Simply continue working. Invisible technicians will reach into your workstation remotely and remove all that is needful. You won’t even know they were there.
Another advantage is the practical ability to extract data from throughout a storage network. Modern storage systems may be distributed across many machines, and for efficiency’s sake, these systems organize files in a manner that makes sense only in the context of the entire network. Reconstructing a RAID-0 (a “striped” file storage pattern using more than a single drive) from hard drives imaged in the traditional manner is expensive, frustrating and time consuming.
Likewise, where a “virtualized” server straddles a dozen appliances, to forensically image such a server could require dozens of separate projects. For these and other reasons, a combination of live extraction and forced backup has been the typical approach to server data extraction for years. Traditional imaging of such appliances is long dead.
I would add that a third advantage is that the limitations of live file extraction set forth below encourage a measured, practical approach to electronic discovery. The same weaknesses that mean that not all data will be collected hide a silver lining. The death of imaging and the growing use of live file extraction as the sole alternative will lead to a broader acceptance of the reality that e-discovery, like its paper predecessors, is neither perfect nor complete. This in turn will lead to cost savings.
The disadvantages of live file extraction are the inverse of the advantages of traditional forensic imaging:
• It isn’t possible to make an electronic bit-for-bit copy of a hard drive that is operational. For example, Windows machines supplement their available Random Access Memory (RAM) with what is known as a page file in order to improve performance. The page file is stored on the hard drive. Its contents alter from second to second. Thus, the bit-for-bit appearance of the target drive will vary from beginning to end, and during any imaging attempt. Don’t be fooled by the misnomer live file imaging, which means the copying of selected files while preserving metadata.
• Though capable of working in the background, extraction applications and forensic viewers need processing time like any other piece of software. Giving priority to business applications may cause the forensic process to drag interminably. Boosting resources to forensic processes may crash business applications. Installed data retrieval software may have to battle with network security and antivirus alarms, leading to even scarier problems.
• Crashing your client’s business systems is bad enough. If you’re engaged in adversarial discovery with an extraction team on-site at the opposing party’s facility, it can be disastrous. Be ready for counterclaims, quashed Temporary Restraining Orders and sanctions. Naturally, vendors do not exactly flock to opportunities to undertake live adversarial extraction unless the fee justifies the risk. The first invoice will make you long for the good old days of true forensic imaging.
• Working live carries all of the usual risks that traditional imaging mitigates by minimizing contact with operational systems and deferring as much activity as possible to a lab environment. Static discharge, physical damage, data slurring, overwriting, malware, bugging, network security compromise, mistakes, the “observer effect” and other concerns all heighten the risks associated with live file extraction. In forensic imaging, back-up copies are stored safely elsewhere. When working live, the original files may be compromised.
• Live file extraction takes time and requires a broad set of IT skills. Every computer system is different and carries its own vulnerabilities. Extraction software that works perfectly on platform A may not work at all on Platform B. These factors lead to increased expense and increased risk that important documents may be missed.
• Extraction volume is limited. Data transfer rates are slow. Searching, even for broad categories of files or file types, is time consuming. Even if you use in-house IT staff or a vendor to undertake live file extraction, the pressures of time and expense will result in the extraction of fewer files.
Since live file extraction is the future, let me end on a positive note. All of these extraction limitations are well known, and the e-discovery industry has made enormous efforts to solve them. Don’t believe any vendor that claims there is such a thing as an error-free solution. On the other hand, as time passes, live extraction – and live searching – will continue to improve.
Eric P. Blank is the founder and managing attorney of Blank Law +
Technology PS. His practice focuses on electronic discovery counseling,
e-security response planning and implementation, investigations and
computer forensics. Mr. Blank has conducted more than 300
investigations into computer and software-related torts and employee
misconduct since 2001 and has frequently been a court-appointed special
master or neutral in e-discovery matters.
Case in Point 2009-09-21 05:00:02
September 21, 2009
About ‘Case in Point’ – ‘Case in Point’ is a weekly cartoon series, created by CaseCentral Corporation, that illustrates the lighter side of eDiscovery. ‘Case in Point’ also runs a contest inviting anyone from the expansive eDiscovery realm – lawyers, IT staff, judges, service providers, paralegals, writers and consultants – to submit their own humorous experience or a scenario they find particularly funny. Participants may submit cartoon ideas online at http://www.casecentral.com/caseinpoint/idea for consideration. Winners will see their idea turned into a cartoon and receive a $50 gift certificate.
Permission to reproduce ‘Case in Point’ cartoons is granted on the conditions that any cartoon used is reproduced “as is” and that the re-use is not for purposes of resale or direct compensation. Please provide CaseCentral with a copy of any such use by sending an email with attached sample to: info@casecentral.com.
About the cartoonist – CaseCentral is pleased to feature Tom Fishburne as the cartoonist behind ‘Case in Point.’ See Tom’s bio here: http://www.tomfishburne.com/tomfishburne/bio.html
About CaseCentral – Case in Point is sponsored by CaseCentral. Visit www.casecentral.com to learn more about CaseCentral’s eDiscovery products and services.
State E-Discovery Rulemaking after the 2006 Federal Amendments: An Update
September 17, 2009
Since the amendment of the Federal Rules in 2006, many states have adopted their own rules to address the discovery of electronically stored information. Recently, Thomas Allman, a recognized authority on electronic discovery, gave permission to post his article identifying and analyzing the myriad of state e-discovery rules around the country. Our thanks to Mr. Allman for his analysis, and his gracious permission to post the article here.
Introduction
Many states have adopted state-wide provisions to address some of the unique procedural issues involved in e-discovery. In addition, a number of “commercial” or “business” courts within states, as well as local courts, have adopted specialized rules on the topic.
As of September 2009, twenty-three states have adopted statewide e-discovery procedural rules which mirror or reflect the 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“2006 Amendments”). In addition, several states have adopted, typically as a separate measure, an analog to the Federal Evidence Rule 502 dealing with waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection.
To read the full article, click here.
TOM ALLMAN, a former Senior V.P. & General Counsel of BASF Corporation, is one of the Editors of the Sedona Principles (2nd Ed. 2007) and currently co-chairs the Steering Committee of the Sedona Conference® Working Group on Electronic Discovery and Document Production (“WG1”). He is also one of the Editors of the PLI Electronic Discovery Deskbook (2009). He was an early advocate of the need for e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including what became Rule 37(e) (the “safe harbor” amendment). He is a graduate of Yale Law School and resides in Cincinnati and New York City.
SuperiorGlacier Launches ESI Spy
September 17, 2009
The new web-based portal provides clients with early insight to case data helping them make decisions about their data and better manage e-discovery projects reports SuperiorGlacier. The ESI Spy portal lets clients create customized reports based various factors including file extension, duplicate items and file sizes. Here for press release.
Cowen Group Optimistic about EDD Hiring
September 17, 2009
The Cowen Group has launched a newletter, "The Career Corner," and leads off with a report on career trends, by Jared Coseglia and David Cowen.
After recently polling 100+ HR and lit support managers/directors (and subsequent conversations with these folks and senior EDD attys and mgrs) they ID three "hot trends:"
1. Demand is exceeding talent on the West Coast by a factor of 3:1: 32% of law firms in the U.S. "expect to add litigation support staff within the next six months — and 44% of these openings would be in the West Coast."
"Openings that already exist are going unfilled. From 2006-2008, it took an average of 8-12 weeks to fill an open position for an analyst, specialist, or project manager in California. Today, it takes six to eight months — or longer — to fill these positions with many openings unfilled since February 2009. There is simply not enough experienced talent to satisfy demand on the West Coast."
They predict that the demand will result in salary spikes, as much as 10%-20% "to attract the necessary talent away from local firms or relocate the East Coast talent."
Another prediction: As vendors Darwin-out (i.e., consolidate or collapse) talent from that community may migrate to firms.
2. Expect growth also in in-house EDD posts, fueled by a growing demand for folks who can develop EDD practices "tailored to needs of specific corporations."
"The growing interest and search for corporate E-Discovery Directors is a strong lead indicator of future demand for E-Discovery technicians," they say. "These new departments, once visualized, will need analysts, specialists and especially project managers to actually execute the strategy."
3. "There is an emerging flexible staffing model among law firms, vendors and corporations. Organizations need more talent to meet their client's needs during a surge of active litigation, but they do not want to add permanent headcount to their staff."
Watch for more temps. "This is an historic trend traceable after any economic recession. Companies across all industries are displacing some of their economic uncertainty onto new hires; however, flexible staffing has advantages for both employee and employer."
And expect more training, whether you are full time or temps. This will be especially advantageous to temps, the authors suggest, will take advantage of training by the new, rotating employers. "These new skills and experiences a temporary employee can 'add to their tool-belt' often serve them well as they continue on from contract to contract, making them more eligible for more opportunities."
Observe Cowen & Coseglia: "The opportunity to make a positive impact at the crest of a litigation at a new employer can have powerful repercussions. Your hard work, ability, and willingness to go above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty will not go unnoticed."
For more information, visit Cowen's OpportunityKnocksBlog
Court Orders Adverse Inference for Spoliation of Data on Handheld Devices
September 16, 2009
Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Brody, 2009 WL 2883057 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2009)
Plaintiff Southeastern Mechanical Services, Inc. (“SMS”) moved for spoliation sanctions alleging that defendants, including individual defendants Smith, Sherouse and Brody, spoliated data by deleting it from their BlackBerries and laptops. Defendants denied the allegations and argued that no evidence was destroyed because all of the data on the individual defendants’ laptops and BlackBerries was stored on servers. Further, defendants argued that hard copies of the relevant emails were produced to SMS and it was therefore irrelevant whether any information was deleted. The allegations regarding the laptops were eventually resolved by corporate defendant Thermal Engineering Construction Services, Inc.’s, (“TEI”), explanation that the laptops were configured so that the individual defendants’ emails would reside on the server. As to the BlackBerries, however, the court found the individual defendants had deleted the data in bad faith and ordered an adverse inference to be provided to the jury at trial.
The timing of certain activities is relevant to the analysis. In furtherance of their employment with corporate defendant TEI, defendants Smith and Sherouse purchased BlackBerries no later than May 29, 2008. Defendant Brody used his personal BlackBerry during the course of his employment. The BlackBerries were synchronized to TEI’s servers on June 3 and 4, 2008. On June 10th, four days after receiving SMS’s demand letter alleging defendants’ unauthorized access to SMS’s confidential information and trade secrets, defendants’ emails were copied and preserved. The individual defendants returned their “computer devices” and BlackBerries on June 16 and 17, 2008, four days after being asked to do so (pursuant to a Temporary Restraining Order issued by the court), and defendants email accounts were subsequently locked and frozen, preventing defendants’ access.
Thereafter, the BlackBerries were provided to plaintiff’s and defendants’ forensic experts. Neither found any data on the BlackBerries, despite evidence that the devices had been used for more than making phone calls. Specifically, plaintiff’s expert determined the devices “contained no data, including e-mails, text messages, calendar items, telephone records, contacts, attachments, or applications.” TEI’s expert also determined that each of the devices contained a Subscriber Identity Module (“SIM”), a card which contains information about a phones service and can also contain information about text messages and address contacts. Limited, if any, information was discovered on each card.
Both experts proffered possible explanations for the absence of data, including accidental deletion by the consecutive mis-entry of the device’s password and purposeful deletion either by the user or remotely from the relevant server. Defendants’ expert also opined that plaintiff’s expert may have inadvertently deleted the data while conducting his examination, a suggestion quickly dismissed by the court.
Under Florida law (relied upon in the absence of guidelines in the 11th circuit), spoliation is established when it is proven that: “1) the evidence existed at one time, 2) the alleged spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence, and 3) the evidence was crucial to the movant’s prima facie case or defense.”
Defendants conceded the existence of the data and their duty to preserve. Thus, the questions before the court were: 1) whether defendants destroyed relevant data, and 2) whether they acted in bad faith when doing so.
The court found that “the circumstances surrounding the destruction of data from Individual BlackBerries indicate bad faith” and noted that three of the four explanations proffered by the experts for the lack of data were attributable only to “deliberate and intentional actions.” In so finding, the court reasoned that the lack of any emails, calendar entries, text messages or telephone records was “improbable” and “suspicious” particularly in light of defendants’ frequent use of the devices.
Regarding defendants’ assertions that any emails deleted from the BlackBerries were stored on the company’s server, the court noted the six or seven day delay between the activation of the BlackBerries and their synchronization to the server. Moreover, the hard copies previously produced by defendants revealed that the individual defendants used their personal accounts to communicate with TEI and others and that those emails would not be stored on the company’s server. Nor, noted the court, would the server store text messages, calendar items, or call logs. In footnote, the court explained its decision to hold the individual defendants responsible:
Because spoliation is an act of concealment and deception, it can be difficult to determine all of the facts related to the destruction of evidence, including the identity of the spoliator. However, their possession of the devices, coupled with the delay in turning them over to TEI after receipt of service of the Temporary Restraining Order, gave the Individual Defendants the opportunity to erase data. The court finds that Individual Defendants were responsible for the intentional wiping of the BlackBerries. The record is insufficient to demonstrate that either Corporate Defendants or BPI directed or condoned Individual Defendants' conduct.
Declining to impose the requested sanction of default judgment, the court found an adverse inference instruction to be the “most appropriate” sanction, and entered an order accordingly.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
Ringtail QuickCull
September 15, 2009
Just when you thought that everyone is getting out of the hardware and infrastructure offerings and headed for the clouds, FTI Consulting recently announced the launch of Ringtail QuickCull. QuickCull is an appliance (Dell Enterprise Server using Windows Virtualization Server) that, like the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform, aims to help organizations come down to earth and cull and analyze data on site to provide an early case assessment of information that may be responsive to litigation.
The FTI technology in QuickCull is not new. You may remember the name from an ealier announcement. It is presently used in FTI's hosting service. In Q4 2009, it will come to a theatre near you, in the QuickCull appliance, for the price of the box and a per gigabyte cost in data processing.
QuickCull is designed to deploy "out-of-the-box" and begin to index data, deduplicate it, and present it for early review. One box is capable of culling through and anaylzing 100 gigabytes of data per day — additional units can accelerate that throughput. End point: Reviewers can search the indexed material using all the usual suspects, such as keyword and Boolean queries, as well as mark and tag documents and export them for further processing into FTI's Attenex Patterns or other platforms via the EDRM XML standard.
Case in Point 2009-09-14 05:00:35
September 14, 2009
About ‘Case in Point’ – ‘Case in Point’ is a weekly cartoon series, created by CaseCentral Corporation, that illustrates the lighter side of eDiscovery. ‘Case in Point’ also runs a contest inviting anyone from the expansive eDiscovery realm – lawyers, IT staff, judges, service providers, paralegals, writers and consultants – to submit their own humorous experience or a scenario they find particularly funny. Participants may submit cartoon ideas online at http://www.casecentral.com/caseinpoint/idea for consideration. Winners will see their idea turned into a cartoon and receive a $50 gift certificate.
Permission to reproduce ‘Case in Point’ cartoons is granted on the conditions that any cartoon used is reproduced “as is” and that the re-use is not for purposes of resale or direct compensation. Please provide CaseCentral with a copy of any such use by sending an email with attached sample to: info@casecentral.com.
About the cartoonist – CaseCentral is pleased to feature Tom Fishburne as the cartoonist behind ‘Case in Point.’ See Tom’s bio here: http://www.tomfishburne.com/tomfishburne/bio.html
About CaseCentral – Case in Point is sponsored by CaseCentral. Visit www.casecentral.com to learn more about CaseCentral’s eDiscovery products and services.
What’s New at EDRM
September 11, 2009
Great strides have been taken over the past two years to flesh out and further define the EDRM model. Over the next few months, you will be seeing two years worth of active collaboration, refinement and modeling being added to the EDRM website. As part of that process, we are re-building the site to provide users an updated interface with easier access to the valuable research and content. In that realm, we wanted to provide a quick update on what’s happening in each of the projects.
For the current year – May 2009 to May 2010 – we have eight active EDRM projects:
- Evergreen (2007): The goals of the Evergreen project have been to ensure that the Electronic Discovery Reference Model remains current, practical and relevant; to enhance the content at each node of the Model; and to educate about how to make effective use of the Model. At the moment, we have two versions of Evergreen content posted – the original EDRM educational content (http://edrm.net/wiki), and the Evergreen working content (http://edrm.net/wiki2).
Update: The Evergreen working group put together a Production Pack ‘n Go PowerPoint presentation, which steps through the stages of the production process. Posted in early 2009, that presentation is available at http://edrm.net/blog/001/1 - XML (2006): The goal of the EDRM XML Project is to provide a standard, generally accepted XML schema to facilitate the movement of electronically stored information (ESI) from one step of the electronic discovery process to the next, from one software program to the next, and from one organization to the next.
Update: The XML group has developed an XML schema that can be used, and is being used, as a replacement for the multitude of proprietary load file formats out there today. We released version 1.0 of the schema in January 2008, along with a validation tool, a test compliance load file, and documentation. We released version 1.1 of the schema in February 2009. We are working on refinements to version 1.1 and have begun the planning process for version 2.x. Eighteen software providers have given us documentation confirmed that they passed the compliance self-test we make available. We know that many other providers, as well as a number of consumers, also use the schema but have not taken the extra step of providing us with the testing documentation. For XML materials, go to http://edrm.net/xml_distrib/ - Metrics (2006): The goal of the Metrics project is to provide an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with e-discovery activities. In addition, the Metrics model group is responsible for creating tracking, reporting and measurement protocols to assess e-discovery activities, and, to the extent metrics data becomes available, begin analysis of that data.
Update: After three years of hard work, the Metrics group has developed an extensive set of codes, which will soon be released in version 1.0 form. The draft set can be seen at http://edrm.net/2009_2010/metrics_006.php - Model Code of Conduct (2007): This project has as its goal the development of aspirational, voluntary ethical guidelines for electronic discovery providers and consumers. Ultimately, these guidelines will be akin to those under which attorneys, court personnel and others in the legal space operate.
Update: The draft Model Code of Conduct is available at http://edrm.net/wiki2/index.php/EDRM_Code_of_Conduct - Search (2008): The EDRM Search Project is aimed at providing a framework for defining and managing various aspects of search as applied to electronic discovery workflow. Electronic discovery practitioners use several search techniques for culling and locating electronically stored information. By specifying the type of search, its behavior and expected results, the uncertainty and incompleteness of search can be addressed.
Update: In February 2009, we released version 1.14 of the draft EDRM Search Guide. The draft guide is available in three forms – as a wiki (http://edrm.net/wiki2/index.php/EDRM_Search_Guide), as a downloadable Word 2003 file (http://edrm.net/files/EDRM-Search-Guide%20v1.14.doc) and as a downloadable PDF file (http://edrm.net/files/EDRM-Search-Guide%20v1.14.pdf). The group currently is working on version 1.17 of the Search Guide and has begun development of an accompanying XML schema.
Data Set (2008): When the EDRM Data Set Project was launched last year, we set the very challenging goal of compiling a 100 gigabyte data set that can be used to test various aspects of electronic discovery software and services.
Update: To date, we have put together over 60 gigabytes of data. Currently it has four components: an internationalization data set containing materials in 23 languages; a Enron email dataset that has had attachments reattached to the messages and has been reconstituted as a series of PST files; a file format dataset containing over 200 file types; and a file extension list with over 13,000 extensions. We are conducting internal testing of the data at this point, and are working on distribution mechanisms. - Jobs (2009): The goal of the EDRM Jobs Project is to develop a framework for evaluating pre-discovery and discovery personnel needs or issues. This framework will provide scenarios based on existing business models and will serve as a starting point for the needs assessment of human capital. The intent is to provide organizations with a means to identify, assess, advocate for, recruit, on-board and retain the appropriate level of professional resources.
Update: An initial process flow diagram depicting the process has been drafted. The group is working on developing a second level flow and related content. - Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) (2009): The goal of the IMRM Project is to provide a common, practical, flexible framework to help organizations develop and implement effective and actionable information management programs. The IMRM Project aims to offer guidance to Legal, IT, Records Management, line-of-business leaders and other business stakeholders within organizations. The Project seeks to facilitate dialogue among these stakeholders by providing a common language and reference for discussion and decision-making based on the needs of the organization.
Update: The team has organized into 6 working groups, each focused on gathering input from relevant industry groups and organizations, including analyst firms, corporations, electronic content management (ECM) vendors, healthcare providers, industry trade associations, and standards and certification organizations.
About EDRM
EDRM is an effort to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the world of electronic discovery. This effort is carried out by organizations and individuals who elect to become active EDRM participants – currently nearly 80 organizational participants as well as over 50 individual participants.
All content published at the EDRM site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/) or similar provisions. Everyone is free to share the content – to copy, distribute and transmit the work. Everyone is free to remix the content – to adapt the work. No one needs to pay any fee to EDRM for access to or use of the content. All we require is that you attribute the content to edrm.net.
Participating organizations and individuals pay a participation fee (details at http://edrm.net/pricing.php) to provide the resources needed to support the EDRM activities. Participants also commit to make a good faith effort to be active, productive members of the initiative. Without the active involvement of these organizations and individuals, EDRM would not exist – there would be no EDRM framework, no supporting materials, no EDRM xml schema, no EDRM Search Guide and so on.
Working collaboratively, the participants strive to improve the electronic discovery process for everyone involved in that process, primarily through establishing guidelines, setting standards, and delivering resources. To this end, EDRM is structured as a series of working projects that run from May to May. Many of the projects are divided into working groups, to make the undertaking more manageable.
We Welcome Your Participation
Help us make EDRM a better resource for everyone. Please join our efforts, as a participating organization or as an individual. We also welcome constructive suggestions from those in the e-discovery community, member or not. You can email them to us at: mail@edrm.net. And if you are, or have been, a participant, we thank you for your contributions!