![]() We’ve got to deal with electronic evidence in small cases, too. Most evidence today is electronic, so curtailing discovery of electronic evidence isn’t an option, and trying to stick with paper is a dead end. “Don’t mess up the metadata! Leave this stuff to the experts!” But the trial lawyer in me wonders how a solo/small firm practitioner in a run-of-the-mill case is supposed to tell a client, “Sorry, the courts are closed to you because you can’t afford e-discovery experts.” “Guard the chain of custody,” I want to warn. They wondered: Did they really need an e-discovery vendor? Couldn’t they just do it themselves?Īs a computer forensic examiner, I blanch at the thought of lawyers harvesting data and processing e-mail in native formats. Even out on the prairie, they’d heard of online hosting and e-mail analytics, but worried about the cost. Like the dog that caught the car, they weren’t sure what to do next. Recently, a West Texas firm received a dozen Microsoft Outlook PST files from a client. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited. ![]() This is the thirteenth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery– updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |