Lexis Nexis recently conducted a survey, which the Law Technology News wrote about here, regarding the importance of file sharing in law firm collaboration. The survey showed that, while many firms continue to express concerns about security, over two thirds of those who participated in the survey use unencrypted email to share files. The survey points out that these firms rely solely on the confidentiality statement within an email for protection. Read more…
Portland, Ore. firm Exterro hosts webcast with Magistrate Judge James Francis (SDNY), District Judge Paul Grimm (Dist. Md.) and Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott (ND Ala.) for a discussion about the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding e-discovery.
The Decade of Discovery is a documentary film “about a government attorney on a quest to find a better way to search White House e-mail, and a teacher who takes a stand for civil justice on the electronic frontier.” It features e-discovery pioneer judges like Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, the founder of The Sedona Conference®, Richard G. Braman, and others who have helped shape the search for justice and freedom in the digital age.
The film will debut at the Hoboken International Film Festival on May 31st and at the Manhattan Film Festival on June 21st.
Watch the trailer here.
The Heartbleed bug, which surfaced at the beginning of last week, is one of the worst security breaches that the internet has had to deal with. It has been around for approximately two years, undetected by anyone except for, potentially, the NSA. The vulnerability allows attackers to grab usernames, passwords, and actual content, as well as impersonate services, and there is currently no way to detect whether it has been exploited or not. This vulnerability not only affects websites, but also hardware such as wifi routers and firewalls. So, what practical steps should be taken to protect any client materials stored at third party locations?
The first item on the list would be to assure your client that you are contacting the vendors involved. The next step would be to find out if any of the vendors you use were affected by the bug, and to learn as much as possible about what steps the vendor has taken and is taking to protect your client’s data. There are tests that can be done regarding whether websites have been patched, one of them can be found here. A list of hardware vendors to check can be found here. Even if the vendor assures you that the hardware has been patched, you will want to check your own hardware against the list. Once you have confirmation that all vendor services have been patched, the last item is to change your passwords for these services. Although it may be obvious to do so, keep the client informed throughout this process, find answers to any questions the client has, and maintain communication with the vendor so that you, and the client, can rest assured that reasonable steps have been taken to protect their data.
Google Glass—the wearable computer that allows users to, among many other things, take photos, shoot videos, send messages, find directions, and browse the web using voice commands—has been available to beta users, called “Glass Explorers,” for some time and is reportedly set for broader public release later this year. Entry to the general market will undoubtedly give rise to questions about how the device, and its uses, will change the legal landscape (if at all) and how the device will differ from existing technologies as a target of discovery requests and related discovery obligations of litigants. Read more…
Join us for a lunchtime CLE in Bend, Oregon on Tuesday, April 29.
- Topic: “Managing E-Discovery Issues in Litigation”
- Presenter: Josh Ross and Angelene Falconer of Stoll Berne, Portland
Josh and Angelene regularly handle complex litigation matters. They will discuss strategies and highlight issues that frequently arise, and offer tips on managing e-discovery issues efficiently.
- Venue: The Oxford Hotel, 10 Below
- Time: Buffet opens at 11:45, CLE will be from 12 to 1
- Cost: $25 for lunch and CLE if registered by 5pm on on April 24th. After that, cost is $30.
- Credit: One General CLE credit pending
Now that the public comments period has closed for the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we thought it was time to do a more in-depth follow up to our post about Judge Scheindlin’s criticism of the proposed changes. Rather than reading all of the thousands of written submissions (you can do that here) we did a breakdown of all of the speakers’ comments at the public hearings before the advisory committee and reviewed the materials that will be considered at their next meeting here in Portland, OR next week. Read more…
This Law Technology News series explores the possibility of limiting e-discovery through agreement between the parties. Part 1 discusses the potential benefits of these contracts and what provisions might be considered. Part 2 cautions parties about the risks of diving into this uncharted territory, as the courts may find some provisions to be unenforceable.
Free public WiFi is everywhere. At cafes, hotels, the airport, courts, and many other locales. Its convenience, and the lack of unlimited cellular data for many, mean many of us use it to connect while we are away from home. Using free public WiFi increases your risk of a data breach, given how easy it is to download tools to snoop for information on these networks. Firesheep is one such tool, and is easy to use. Wireshark is another one; it takes a little more technical know how but also allows hackers to grab unencrypted data from unsuspecting victims. Luckily, there are some solutions out there that can help keep you secure when using free public WiFi. Read more…
Most litigators (and clients) can confirm that costs of e-discovery and related services have skyrocketed in recent years. In earlier blog posts, we’ve explained why “insourcing” litigation support services, including e-discovery services, can help reduce those costs. Still, business litigation almost always requires collecting, managing, storing, and producing electronic data in response to requests from opposing parties. While a 2008 amendment to 28 U.S.C. section 1920 makes clear that, generally, ESI is considered a cost of “making copies” and generally recoverable by a prevailing party, which specific costs are recoverable if your client prevails? A couple recent decisions provide some guidance and food for thought. Read more…