Announcing an Industry-first Integration between EnCase eDiscovery and Box for Defensible Cloud Collection

   

All of us on the EnCase eDiscovery team are excited to announce a new integration between EnCase® eDiscovery and Box, the enterprise cloud content management platform used by 97% of the Fortune 500. Enterprise IT teams have come to rely on Box for cloud storage capabilities that map to their information governance policies and processes. This makes Box the perfect choice for this industry-first integration with our complete e-discovery product, an integration that will let legal teams securely search, collect, and preserve electronically stored information (ESI) located on Box from within EnCase eDiscovery just as easily as with on-premise data.

Now Collect and Preserve Information Managed in Box as Readily as On-Premises Data

Whitney Bouck, the senior vice president and general manager of enterprise at Box, has said that many of their enterprise customers reside within highly regulated industries, so they need a way to meet e-discovery and compliance requirements in a way that does not compromise efficiency and user experience. This makes Box and EnCase eDiscovery ideally suited to offer IT and legal teams a scalable, reliable, and secure way to gain visibility of content stored in Box, to manage access to that content, and to control retention and dispensation.

Digital DNA Strikes Again in Civil Discovery

John Blumenschein

A recent article written by attorney Mark A. Berman in Law Technology News, entitled Recent Decisions Focus on Duty to Preserve ESI and Metadata, highlights the important role that metadata can play in civil discovery. He focused on a series of recent New York State decisions that dealt with these issues, and one particular case he referenced, Alfano v. LC Main, LLC, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1046 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 18, 2013), involved an EnCE®-certified computer examiner named Michael Nelson, who used EnCase® Forensic in his tool set to help establish that the metadata associated with a digital photograph submitted by the plaintiff had not been taken at the time of the event at issue in the matter.

This action was commenced to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff when he slipped and fell on ice on a construction site owned by the defendant. The plaintiffs submitted photographs of the accident scene taken several days after the accident, which they claimed depicted the area where the accident occurred and the snow and ice conditions as they existed at the time of the accident.

CEIC 2013: Leading Judges Speak on TAR and Digital Information in Criminal Prosecutions

Daniel Lim

Many thanks to Judges Vanessa D. Gilmore, (U.S. District Court, S.D. Tex. – Houston Division), David Waxse (U.S. District Court, Kansas), and Karla Spaulding (U.S. District Court, M.D. Fla.) for an engaging and informative panel at the CEIC® 2013 conference in Orlando.

TAR: Holy Grail or Helpful Tool?

Judge Waxse helped to start us off with a discussion of whether experts would be required to testify for the use of new technologies in discovery, such as technology assisted review (TAR).  While Judge Peck has indicated his view that such testimony would NOT be needed because Federal Rule of Evidence applies to trial, rather than discovery, Judge Waxse takes an opposing view.  

E-Discovery Gone Wrong: The Blooper Reel

Five years after the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) our professions should have worked out the kinks in collecting, processing, culling, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information (ESI). 

And yet, most haven’t. ESI is still being created in the main through the use of Microsoft Word and Outlook for written communications. Social networking and smartphones and tablets are complicating matters, but they’re not yet primary sources of discoverable ESI.

Virtualization and cloud computing are adding to the complexity of the enterprise technology environment. While that contributes to e-discovery challenges, it doesn’t justify most of the issues being presented by litigants. The main problems lie elsewhere. 

Here’s a collection of key takeaways from recent cases involving e-discovery errors.