Lotus Notes is often misunderstood, even by those who should know better. Vendors will happily convert NSF's to PST's without once bothering to check if the NSF's are even mail files, let alone examining them for custom email fields.
Truth is, Lotus Notes is a database which is used for email, calendars, tasks and all that good stuff just like Microsoft Outlook. But it is also designed to serve as the basis for many other database-oriented applications.
Need a CRM system? Notes can do that. Need a web-based customer service centre? Yep, Notes can do that too. Or rather, Lotus Notes application developers can do that. It's not as if Notes does it all by itself . . .
Anyway, I wanted to let you all know that Intechgration now has a new sister website - www.eddnotes.com, created and carefully monitored by Intechgration's very own Steve Treible who has over a decade of experience in Lotus Notes and is both a certified Lotus Notes Administrator and Lotus Notes Developer.
So if you have any questions about your Notes-based eDiscovery, drop us a line using the form on www.eddnotes.com, and watch the site for updates!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Technology Hares and Legal Tortoises
I was at an after-work seminar this evening sponsored by Commonwealth Legal that featured the renowned Michael Arkfeld who is well-known in the litigation support community for being one of the (too few) lawyers who truly understand eDiscovery.
His presentation covered a number of points, mainly with a US focus, but one thing he touched on really jumped out at me. He was talking about the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Rule 26(b)(2)(B) which states "(a) party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost".
Now, many lawyers, when this rule first came out, took this to mean that there was no reason to worry about backup tapes any more. After all, we all know that backup tapes cost a small fortune to restore, index, get data off, and generally use for discovery purposes. But that was back in 2006. Since then, Index Engines has come out with technology that indexes tapes without having to go through all the pain and trouble of restoring them. (See here for an interesting blog post on their product).
In other words, Index Engine's technology has made reliance on some case law which specifies backup tapes as being "not reasonably accessible" a dangerous thing to do.
So this raises an obvious question. How can lawyers (who are rarely comfortable with technology anyway) hope to keep up with the fast pace of technology? For every problem that eDiscovery throws at the IT world (and legal professionals) someone will come up with some kind of solution to make it faster, cheaper and easier.
Michael Arkfeld's suggestion was to have some kind of eDiscovery technology clearing-house, which is not a bad idea, although perhaps difficult to implement. My suggestion, until Mr. Arkfeld gets his Technology Clearinghouse up and running, is to at least try to read industry publications (not just law firm technology publications - Information Week is also a surprisingly good source of eDiscovery trends from an IT perspective) and go to a trade show once in a while. LegalTech NY is probably the best for checking out who is doing what in the eDiscovery world.
His presentation covered a number of points, mainly with a US focus, but one thing he touched on really jumped out at me. He was talking about the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Rule 26(b)(2)(B) which states "(a) party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost".
Now, many lawyers, when this rule first came out, took this to mean that there was no reason to worry about backup tapes any more. After all, we all know that backup tapes cost a small fortune to restore, index, get data off, and generally use for discovery purposes. But that was back in 2006. Since then, Index Engines has come out with technology that indexes tapes without having to go through all the pain and trouble of restoring them. (See here for an interesting blog post on their product).
In other words, Index Engine's technology has made reliance on some case law which specifies backup tapes as being "not reasonably accessible" a dangerous thing to do.
So this raises an obvious question. How can lawyers (who are rarely comfortable with technology anyway) hope to keep up with the fast pace of technology? For every problem that eDiscovery throws at the IT world (and legal professionals) someone will come up with some kind of solution to make it faster, cheaper and easier.
Michael Arkfeld's suggestion was to have some kind of eDiscovery technology clearing-house, which is not a bad idea, although perhaps difficult to implement. My suggestion, until Mr. Arkfeld gets his Technology Clearinghouse up and running, is to at least try to read industry publications (not just law firm technology publications - Information Week is also a surprisingly good source of eDiscovery trends from an IT perspective) and go to a trade show once in a while. LegalTech NY is probably the best for checking out who is doing what in the eDiscovery world.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Women in eDiscovery
How time flies when you're having fun!
I hadn't realized that my last post was way back on the 4th, and seeing as I had some unexpected free time today I decided that I'd better put together a quick post!
As some readers will know, I'm the Assistant Director of the Toronto Chapter of Women in eDiscovery. The Toronto chapter, although not (yet!) the largest, has been one of the most rapidly growing chapters, reflecting a previously unmet need for education and networking among litigation technology professionals.
We usually have around 30 members turn up to each meeting (sometimes more, sometimes less) and, now that the "formalities" meetings are over, we're starting to get into the swing of things.
Our last meeting, on September 17th, was held at Torys (thanks Ceyda!); lunch was sponsored by KPMG; and Kelly Inglese (from McCarthy's) spoke. Our meetings are going to be held on the third Wednesday of the month at lunchtime.
If you are a woman involved in litigation support, legal technology or eDiscovery, join Women in eDiscovery (it's free!) and check us out.
I hadn't realized that my last post was way back on the 4th, and seeing as I had some unexpected free time today I decided that I'd better put together a quick post!
As some readers will know, I'm the Assistant Director of the Toronto Chapter of Women in eDiscovery. The Toronto chapter, although not (yet!) the largest, has been one of the most rapidly growing chapters, reflecting a previously unmet need for education and networking among litigation technology professionals.
We usually have around 30 members turn up to each meeting (sometimes more, sometimes less) and, now that the "formalities" meetings are over, we're starting to get into the swing of things.
Our last meeting, on September 17th, was held at Torys (thanks Ceyda!); lunch was sponsored by KPMG; and Kelly Inglese (from McCarthy's) spoke. Our meetings are going to be held on the third Wednesday of the month at lunchtime.
If you are a woman involved in litigation support, legal technology or eDiscovery, join Women in eDiscovery (it's free!) and check us out.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Bikes are not designed for stairs
I live in an upstairs apartment. I like it that way because I can't stand the sound of people tramping around above me. Trust me, I've lived in a number of places where people have lived above me and am always amazed at how many people find it necessary to walk around their apartments in hobnailed boots at 3 a.m.
But there are disadvantages to living upstairs.
Lugging bags of groceries up the stairs.
Lugging anything up the stairs.
But especially lugging bikes up stairs . . .
If I could get a stair lift thing that would work for bikes, I would. It's the only thing I dislike about living upstairs. And the only regret I have over opting for a hybrid bike over a road bike. (I have a Trek 7.2 FX. It's a great bike, but boy is it heavy!)
But there are disadvantages to living upstairs.
Lugging bags of groceries up the stairs.
Lugging anything up the stairs.
But especially lugging bikes up stairs . . .
If I could get a stair lift thing that would work for bikes, I would. It's the only thing I dislike about living upstairs. And the only regret I have over opting for a hybrid bike over a road bike. (I have a Trek 7.2 FX. It's a great bike, but boy is it heavy!)
When Clients Go Bad . . .
A great blog on LLRX by the highly esteemed Conrad Jacoby about a client who obviously did not "get" the whole litigation hold thing.
His post covers a disaster of a case in the US (where else?); Southern New England Telephone Company (“SNET”) v. Global NAPS, Inc., 2008 WL 2568567 (D.Conn. June 23, 2008).
The short version is this: Company executives chose not to preserve electronic evidence, instead choosing to use "Window Washer" (a file shredding utility that advertises itself with the catchy slogan of "What you do on your computer is YOUR business. Keep it that way!") several times to delete and overwrite key evidence. Then they stood up in court and claimed, while under oath, that the deleted evidence (a number of key documents apparently) had never actually existed. This was in direct contradiction to earlier sworn statements made in other earlier litigations.
The use of Window Washer was picked up (of course) by the computer forensics expert, and the case was thrown out of court.
Unlike other You Have To Be Kidding Me cases (such as the notable Zubulake, and the more recent Qualcomm/Broadcom debacle), the blame for this particular eDiscovery disaster was lain squarely at the feet of the recalcitrant client.
But this one case hardly lets lawyers off the hook. Lawyers are still responsible (on both sides of the border) for informing their clients about the risks, and plain stupidity, of deliberately erasing evidence; be it paper or electronic.
So this case simply illustrates what I have often said - don't let your clients do DIY eDiscovery.
Get in an expert.
Be sure you've advised your client, in writing, of the risks associated with certain actions.
Be sure you have told them how to avoid those risks.
And then monitor, monitor, monitor for compliance with your advice.
His post covers a disaster of a case in the US (where else?); Southern New England Telephone Company (“SNET”) v. Global NAPS, Inc., 2008 WL 2568567 (D.Conn. June 23, 2008).
The short version is this: Company executives chose not to preserve electronic evidence, instead choosing to use "Window Washer" (a file shredding utility that advertises itself with the catchy slogan of "What you do on your computer is YOUR business. Keep it that way!") several times to delete and overwrite key evidence. Then they stood up in court and claimed, while under oath, that the deleted evidence (a number of key documents apparently) had never actually existed. This was in direct contradiction to earlier sworn statements made in other earlier litigations.
The use of Window Washer was picked up (of course) by the computer forensics expert, and the case was thrown out of court.
Unlike other You Have To Be Kidding Me cases (such as the notable Zubulake, and the more recent Qualcomm/Broadcom debacle), the blame for this particular eDiscovery disaster was lain squarely at the feet of the recalcitrant client.
But this one case hardly lets lawyers off the hook. Lawyers are still responsible (on both sides of the border) for informing their clients about the risks, and plain stupidity, of deliberately erasing evidence; be it paper or electronic.
So this case simply illustrates what I have often said - don't let your clients do DIY eDiscovery.
Get in an expert.
Be sure you've advised your client, in writing, of the risks associated with certain actions.
Be sure you have told them how to avoid those risks.
And then monitor, monitor, monitor for compliance with your advice.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
And an introduction . . .
I've asked Steve Treible, from our company Intechgration, to do add some posts on Lotus Notes (and whatever other subjects pique his interest) from time to time.
Watch this space for his guest blogs!
Watch this space for his guest blogs!
The problem with Sharepoint . . .
It's been a few hectic days, so my poor blog has been somewhat neglected. Apologies to anyone that was checking it in the hopes that I'd posted some new amazing insight . . .
A little snippet for today:
In conversation with Chuck Rothman, I learned that MS Sharepoint (which I think we'll all be seeing much more of in the eDiscovery world) copies documents transferred into it, removes the original copy, changes the "date created" AND the "date modified" metadata, thus nicely removing any hope of figuring out when the document actually was created or truly last modified.
A little hiccup to be aware of . . .
A little snippet for today:
In conversation with Chuck Rothman, I learned that MS Sharepoint (which I think we'll all be seeing much more of in the eDiscovery world) copies documents transferred into it, removes the original copy, changes the "date created" AND the "date modified" metadata, thus nicely removing any hope of figuring out when the document actually was created or truly last modified.
A little hiccup to be aware of . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
