Discovery is a process in the criminal justice system that’s vital for ensuring fair cases. The primary goal of discovery is to prevent surprise and establish fairness by enabling both sides to access the same evidence and evaluate the strength of their cases. Specific rules and regulations that vary by jurisdiction govern this process.

In the realm of litigation, the legal hold process plays a crucial role in preserving electronically stored information (ESI) that may be relevant to a lawsuit. By imposing a legal hold, also known as a litigation hold or preservation obligation, organizations ensure that potentially important data is retained and not altered or deleted.

What should you consider directly after processing? In order to become self sufficient in eDiscovery, you will have to accept the following facts. 1) Regardless of eDiscovery platform, not all documents can be opened. 2) Regardless of eDiscovery platform, not all documents can be indexed

Most attorneys representing businesses in litigation have experienced the excruciating burden of reviewing ESI - e-mails and electronically stored information - for privilege or work-product protection, and then having to create a privilege log, a laborious manual effort to build a list describing each document withheld for reasons of privilege. Counsel agonizes over the communications involving the client’s counsel and then the adequacy of the description of the withheld documents in the privilege log.

According to Rule 34 of the FRCP, a party in litigation may serve on any other party a request for production of relevant documents. This request must specify with reasonable particularity each item or category of new items to be inspected. The request may also specify the form in which ESI is to be produced. Although not technically required in the Federal Rules, the form of production is a crucial negotiating point to ensure that production load file and data from the opposing party can be processed and utilized effectively in your firm's eDiscovery tool. We often see "bad" data come in from the opposing party or a third party. If this occurs, you may need to pay for service hours of consultants and experts to fix the load files or identify the specific documents that are causing problems. In order to help you get ahead on potential issues with opposing party data, this blog provides a sample request which defines the form of production. Aside from this, you will also need to keep in mind other requirements in rule 34 and rule 26 which describe your requirements to discuss issues relating to: specificity, the eDiscovery process, timing, logistics regarding how the production will be delivered and how it can be accessed. Most importantly, we recommend working closely with the opposing party to identify these issues as early as possible. If you have any specific questions, consult your eDiscovery vendor (or leave us a message)!