• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Effective Project Management in Discovery

April 8th, 2009 | By Ashish Prasad
This is a guest post by Ashish Prasad. Mr. Prasad has served as the Executive Editor of the Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations and Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, and is the CEO of Discovery Services LLC. Read Mr. Prasad’s full bio at the end of this post.

I. Introduction

Discovery is among the biggest risks facing modern litigants. Effective management of discovery can have an equal, or in some circumstances, greater effect on the outcome of litigation than the actual merits of the case. No one gets to summary judgment, trial, or in most cases, a settlement without first going through the discovery minefield.

Going through the discovery minefield without a plan means taking an unnecessary risk that something will “explode” and derail your litigation efforts and strategy. Not only can discovery errors result in excessive costs, affect the outcome of the case or result in monetary sanctions levied against a client, but courts can impose monetary sanctions on counsel for discovery mismanagement as well. Effective project management is the key to avoid sanctions and other bad things that happen to lawyers and clients en route to case resolution.

This article first briefly explains counsel’s duty to manage discovery, then through several case examples, provides a description of the problems clients and counsel can encounter during discovery, and finally, provides a model for effective project management in discovery.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

Follow @ediscoveryblog


Recent Posts

  • Requiring defendant to restore backup tapes would have violated proportionality standard
  • Model order for ediscovery is not just for patent troll cases
  • Puiszis authors feature article on DRI Today about model orders governing electronic discovery
  • Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion
  • Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility attorney-client privilege backup tapes confidentiality Cost costs cost shifting deposition electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata model order native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production proportionality Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage stored communications act strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.