Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help

Symantec eDiscovery

Showing posts tagged with eDiscovery
Showing posts in English
Chris Talbott | 20 Dec 2012 | 0 comments

For those readers unfamiliar with the LegalTech show, it is the premier event for corporations, law firms, litigation service providers, consultants and vendors to come together and learn and discuss what the technological world has in store for the legal profession. The veteran LegalTech New York team here at Symantec has decided to build anticipation for the 2013 event via a video series starring the LTNY un-baptized associate.  Get introduced to our eDiscovery-challenged protagonist in the first of our videos

As for this year show, we are pleased to expand our presence and are very excited to introduce eDiscovery without limits, along with a LegalTech that promises sessions, social events and opportunities for attendees in the same vein.   In regards to the first aspect – the sessions – the team of Symantec eDiscovery counsels will moderate panelist sessions on topics ranging...

TrevorD | 11 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

A big welcome to Clearwell, customers, partners and employees!  Today, Clearwell Systems, a leader in eDiscovery, is now part of Symantec.  This means our two teams are officially working together to provide both Clearwell and Symantec customers exceptional end-to-end information management solutions spanning archiving, backup and eDiscovery.

We have already begun work on more robust integration between Clearwell and Enterprise Vault.  Our goal is to provide Symantec customers access to enhanced eDiscovery functionality and Clearwell customers access to a broader set of integrated information management solutions from one vendor – Symantec. Together we will help customers:

  • Reduce costs across all phases represented in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, from information management through review and production
  • Reduce risk by improving the defensibility and repeatability of their archiving and eDiscovery processes
  • ...
AlliWalt | 22 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

The most comprehensive piece I have read to date on the differences between Quick-Peeks and Clawback Agreements was authored by Ralph Losey (http://bit.ly/kk1V5z).  In a careful and thoughtful analysis, he succinctly outlines and clarifies the scope of these agreements, when they should be utilized, and how to draft them to safeguard privileged documents from potential waiver claims.  It is recommended reading to improve the knowledge base, because even experienced lawyers are still confused by the two.  See also Rule 26 (b) (5) (B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 502 Federal Rules of Evidence.

Lions and Tigers

In short, using Quick-Peek,the receiving party will have full review of the documents before the producing party. The receiving party, after this full review, will then advise the producing...

pfavro | 15 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

The eDiscovery frenzy that has gripped the American legal system over the past decade has largely eluded our European counterparts.  This is due in large part to the broad and fastidious protections of European privacy laws.  Another reason is found in Europe’s narrower discovery rules, which forbid categorical document requests authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The result is that many companies that operate in Europe may feel insulated from the need to implement eDiscovery-related information governance procedures.

Having a laissez-faire attitude toward information governance is troubling enough.  But taking no action to prepare for eDiscovery is worse.  That is especially the case for companies operating in Europe that maintain offices in the United States.  They may unwittingly fall into an “American style” discovery trap for unsuspecting litigants in foreign proceedings.  That discovery trap is 28 U....

pfavro | 14 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

Is your organization adequately prepared for a lawsuit?  Or are you still trying to develop an internal process for addressing document productions in litigation?

Preparing a litigation response effort is an essential aspect of a company’s information governance plan.  Failing to take the initiative in this regard often leads to higher legal costs and increased risks during litigation.  The Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Development (N.D. Ca. June 6, 2011) case from last week is particularly instructive on this issue.

In Vieste, the court sanctioned several real estate developers for submitting inadequate declarations regarding their document preservation efforts.  Those declarations reveal an overall failure to prepare for litigation.  Among other things, the defendant developers did not issue a litigation hold; did not suspend the overwrite function of one of their computer systems; and waited several months to contact...

pfavro | 09 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

Today's news about the consumer data security breach at Citigroup underscores the need for a secure cloud offering.  Citigroup acknowledged today that hackers had penetrated its systems, exposing sensitive data regarding credit card customers.  http://nyti.ms/lZeLBM

Regardless of which systems were hacked, this news supports the need for companies to closely scrutinize cloud offerings for their data storage.  It is not enough for a cloud provider to offer cheap and unlimited storage.  Companies must satisfy themselves that appropriate security measures are in place when data is transferred and stored in the cloud.  Otherwise, sensitive business and consumer information could be subject to disclosure and misuse.

Proper safekeeping measures should include an encryption protocol that provides security for data transfers to and from the cloud.  Multi-layered firewalls that prevent unauthorized access to...

pfavro | 06 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

It is axiomatic that the law helps those who help themselves.  Perhaps nowhere is that truism more applicable than in the context of electronic discovery.  The company that implements an effective information governance strategy – which includes developing an internal process for how it will address document productions in litigation – will likely avoid court sanctions and reduce its legal fees.

There are many recent examples of companies that defeated sanctions motions because they “got” information governance.  They include the plaintiff manufacturer in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Kolon Industries (see http://bit.ly/kxMfyE) and the defendant bank in Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp (see http://bit.ly/ij1RAI).

And just last week, a defendant hospital prevailed in a sanctions battle due to its effective litigation response effort....

| 31 May 2011 | 0 comments

I was fortunate enough this week to have Symantec  send me to the 11thAnnual Superconference in Chicago at the Fairmont.  All sessions I attended were useful, but one of most important was the Judicial Panel on eDiscovery.  The Judges were: Flynn, Francis, Nolan and Waxse with Patrick Oot of the SEC as the moderator.  It is always beneficial to get into the minds of the judges who lead in eDiscovery.  It is especially important to me because many of our Symantec customers ask when purchasing or deploying our eDiscovery suite, “Does this software have court approval?”

The quick answer to that question is “No,” because in general, courts are not in the business of approving technology.  The other way to answer the question is, “Yes,” because our products have never been disapproved either.  Judges prefer that parties reach agreement themselves on scope, search terms, formats and search methodologies. ...

pfavro | 16 May 2011 | 0 comments

Last year’s landmark opinion in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) was heralded as an eDiscovery gold standard.  Following the Zubulake cases, Pension Committee established bright line rules on data retention, litigation response efforts and sanctions.  Such rules, in turn, strengthened the call for additional eDiscovery standards that were not addressed by the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the impact of Pension Committee on eDiscovery practice and jurisprudence, subsequent case law reveals the difficulty in crafting national eDiscovery standards.  Several courts have declined to follow the Pension Committee rubric, particularly as it relates to litigation holds.  Indeed, over the past three weeks, three different courts have distinguished the sweeping Pension Committee...

pfavro | 11 May 2011 | 0 comments

Are you still on the fence about upgrading to Enterprise Vault 10?  Yet another reason to get the latest version of Enterprise Vault is that it may help your organization minimize litigation risks.  Who doesn’t want to stay out of lawsuits and reduce litigation costs?

Enterprise Vault 10 can help your organization do so though its Data Classification Services technology.  At its heart, Data Classification Services empowers organizations to establish more effective information governance procedures.  Companies are able to better analyze and retain information that is significant or that must be kept – and nothing else.

Available initially for Microsoft Exchange Server, Data Classification Services intelligently analyzes content as email is archived into Enterprise Vault.  Through established retention protocols, email is then tagged and characterized insomuch that it can be searched for and retrieved with greater efficiency. ...