Another great article from Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain regarding obtaining information from a party’s iPad’s, smart phones and other mobile devices.

Social Media Metadata on Mobile Devices:  Gathering Valuable Crumbs

If you’re a fan of television crime dramas, chances are you’re intrigued by how the smallest bits of evidence are often the very ones that end up closing the case on the identity of the criminal. Be it carpet fiber, a human hair, or the DNA from a single drop of blood, these infinitesimally tiny pieces of evidence can reveal vast amounts of information when handled by the right investigators. The same can be true of the small bits of information hiding underneath the content of social media postings made from mobile devices. In the hands of the right forensic examiner, the metadata behind the content can tell a lot about the briefest post. In this article, we’ll look at the connection between social media apps for mobile devices and metadata collection.
Continue Reading

Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain, has over 20 years of experience working in the high technology industry and is a frequent speaker on electronic discovery, computer forensics and cybersecurity. After working on over 1,000 computer forensics and e-discovery cases for over a decade, Julie has provided us with  some simple tips for successful eDiscovery planning:


Continue Reading

W. George Wailes, a Business Trial Attorney and Director at Carr McClellan, in Burlingame, CA brings us this warning from the California Court of Appeal about what could happen to a third party that refuses to comply with a subpoena for electronically stored information.

******************************

The California Court of Appeal recently provided rare guidance regarding a third party’s obligations to produce electronically stored information (ESI) in response to a subpoena.  In Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (Sallie Mae) (2014) 230 CA4th 35, the court defined subpoenaed parties’ obligations to extract existing data from computer systems and upheld an award of attorneys’ fees against the recalcitrant third party.  The court concluded that it is unreasonable for a third party to withhold ESI that exists in its computer systems on the basis that outputting the ESI entails creating a “new” spreadsheet.


Continue Reading

To determine whether or not a responding party has made a reasonable inquiry, you must determine where the responding party searched (what efforts were made), who did they talk to (did they make an inquiry to their legal department, human resources, customer relations, the employees in the chain of command, etc.), and what were the questions they asked.

More often then not I see responses to document requests being done (1) by the one with the highest bar number on the pleading (a.k.a. the newbie associate) and/or (2) by the attorney dictating at their desk instead of taking the time to sit down with the client, determining whom they should be talking to and knowing what questions to ask.

It is my opinion that the person who should be talking to the client and collecting the documents is the experienced senior attorney who has a relationship with the client and knows what questions to ask. If the senior attorney still chooses to delegate, then they need to be “hands on” and take responsibility whether or not a “diligent search” and “reasonable inquiry” were in fact made prior to the response and production being served.
Continue Reading

confused man.jpgHave you ever been around a bunch of lawyers from the Silicon Valley when they start talking about e-discovery?  They start using fancy e-discovery words like “meta data,” “native format” and “clawback agreements.”  Meanwhile your eyes are glazing over and you begin to clench your teeth because all you want  are the e-mails, letters and