This month we upgraded our eDiscovery software by adopting Nuix as our eDiscovery platform, significantly increasing the speed at which we process data – 14 million attachments in under four hours.

See http://nuix.com/default2.asp?active_page_id=220 for the press release.

As you know, part of our commitment to excellence means we promote affordable electronic discovery by creating speed and efficiency in our products and services. We believe the Nuix platform is the most cost-effective solution for our clients.

Nuix is an Australian company that has spent nearly a decade developing and refining its software to arrive at the best the market has to offer. We’re delighted to add this company as a partner.

For more information about our products and services, contact Michael Swarz at (213) 623-1620 ext. 112, or online at mswarz@eclaris.com.

In a post this week on Information Week’s Information Management blog, Andrew Conry-Murray provides a case study of why legal departments should work closely with technology professionals from the moment the business or organization is implicated in a lawsuit – even if the entity isn’t even a party to the suit. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/01/the_6_million_m.html.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was subpoenaed to provide documents in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac litigation. An OFHEO lawyer agreed to the plaintiffs’ search terms for eDiscovery of backup tapes. The plaintiffs submitted 400 search terms, which yielded 660,000 documents, 80 percent of the agency’s total e-mails. The OFHEO had to hire 50 lawyers to review the documents – many of which were entirely irrelevant – and in the process missed court-ordered deadlines to produce evidence. The court eventually held the agency in contempt, which it appealed and lost. All this cost the agency an unbudgeted $6 million, 9 percent of its annual operating budget.

This eDiscovery could have been avoided had the agency consulted IT professionals at the outset to help define the search terms.  

What is your eDiscovery headache? Let us know and we’ll come up with a solution.

Duane Morris litigator Eric J. Sinrod elaborates about why opposing counsel should be more collaborative in his article “E-Discovery: Can’t We All Just Get Along?” http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=72826. He cites the ruling of U.S. Judge Paul W. Grimm in Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co., an analysis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) which requires the attorney record to sign every discovery disclosure, request, response or objection.

That signature “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry,” the request is reasonable and the disclosure is complete and correct. But, asks Judge Grimm, is every counsel engaging in “reasonable inquiry” before making or responding to discovery requests? He concludes that the answer was “no.”