Questions for Meet and Confer Conference
Posts about Meet & Confer written by bowtielaw. This is not the cooperative discovery contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) and . The protocol provides a mechanism, through a meet and confer process, to address problems a receiving party might have with an ESI production early in a . The initial meet and confer made you realize the discovery road could be long and the time has come to establish your e-discovery protocols.
Having your technologist in the room will help you answer any unanticipated questions. Encourage your opponent to bring a technologist as well.
Getting on the Same Page for e-Discovery in the Meet & Confer
That said, just requesting that an IT person attend the meet and confer is not enough. Be sure to prepare your technologist and explain what you expect to happen. The technologist will have valuable input about how much time may be involved in processing or loading documents, building indexes, and putting together productions. A judge would be very happy not to be involved in those decisions or to have to schedule another meeting to hash those issues out. In short, create an open exchange of knowledge about the data types likely to be involved in the case.
Some aspect of the matter or the history of the dispute may be important for planning how to conduct a review. When people who understand the substance—you and the other lawyer—are in the room with the people who understand the technology, the time will be most productive.
In this case, your client is a bank and there are lots of employee performance and productivity issues related to the dispute. So, during this conversation about the data at hand, you learn that many of the attachments collected will be spreadsheets.
You will need to discuss how you typically like to handle these types of documents and how you will produce responsive material.
Be prepared to show examples, and be as visual with the data as possible.
You can run email threading on a test project before the conference, for example, and bring a screenshot showcasing how the technology better organizes the data. Remind them that the more time you can save in review—for both sides of the courtroom—the happier your clients and the court will be. As for the technology-assisted review portion of your preferred protocol, share studies that highlight the accuracy of these workflows compared to manual review.
Ask your technologist to speak to the mathematical concepts behind the technology, if opposing counsel requests. And use success metrics from real-life cases, if you can.
E-Discovery (ESI) Guidelines | United States District Court, Northern District of California
That brings us to our next recommendation… Consideration 5: Bring evidence to overcome objections. The fact is that use of analytics for e-discovery is widespread and growing in acceptance—by courts, law firms, and corporations.
Decisions starting with Da Silva Moore and progressing to Pyrrho add credence to using technology-assisted review.
To that end, I will schedule a telephonic status conference every two weeks in which I will ask the parties about their progress or lack thereof and try to resolve any disagreements they have. What procedural history did the parties ride through for the Court to order a telephonic status conference every two weeks? The Wild Bunch There is an old cowboy quote that applies to lawyers and eDiscovery: Both sides had dueling discovery motions.
The pro se Plaintiffs brought a motion to compel discovery responses after the Defendants at first produced paper and then ESI. The Court quickly held the motion to compel moot.
Meet & Confer | Bow Tie Law's Blog
The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants did not timely respond to discovery requests. Moreover, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants purposely delayed their production until they filed a motion to stay. Judge Facciola included a timeline of the Defendants production and the filing of the motion to compel. The Defendants continued to supplement their production three times. On the date of the last production, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel. As the Court explained: Parties can reduce motion practice and move their cases forward by cooperating effectively during their Rule 26 f meetings.