Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Combating Big Data with a 'Facts First' Approach to e-Discovery
One of the most pressing challenges for legal teams is the ability to quickly identify relevant electronically stored information (ESI) when litigation or regulatory action arises. This challenge has been significantly exacerbated by the arrival of “Big Data,” which refers to data sets that are so large and complex that mining and obtaining useful intelligence about them is impossible using conventional analytical methods and tools. Concerned with maintaining defensibility, many organizations take a “preserve everything” approach, which results in data sets so large that it becomes extremely difficult to identify the most relevant ESI early enough to potentially change the direction of the matter. This problem cannot be overcome by hiring more people, installing more servers or hiring outside service providers. It must be addressed holistically and aggressively with a combination of human intelligence, legal process and advanced information retrieval technology. Taken together, this approach represents a “Facts First” intelligence-gathering methodology that allows legal teams to identify, analyze and defensibly reduce ESI volumes.
The e-Discovery Risks of Big Data
Enterprises face a growing challenge of meeting e-discovery requirements in the face of out-of-control ESI growth. Unstructured data within corporations is growing at a rate of nearly 62% per year, according to International Data Corporation (IDC). This data proliferation, coupled with an over-reliance on backup tapes and ESI being stored in the cloud and across borders, makes the narrowing of the ESI “funnel” ' the process by which legal teams distill large volumes of ESI down to only what's relevant ' much more difficult and risky. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 26(g) exacerbates this challenge by imposing a duty on attorneys to sign every discovery request, response or objection and certify that the signee conducted a “reasonable inquiry” into the facts and the law supporting it.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.