Learning about electronic data discovery can be challenging for both veteran and new lawyers alike. One convenient way to get up-to-speed is through webinars (and a great way to rack up those mandatory continuing legal education credits!) Whether offered by bars, consultants, firms, organizations, or vendors, webinars can be an inexpensive (many are free) and easy way to catch up. Our new E-Discovery School House will help you choose your webinar.

Title: “Significant E-Discovery Cases of 2013.”

Agenda: Three federal judges share their insights into three major cases from 2013. The cases dealt with preservation issues, proposed Rule 37 and clawback orders under FRE 502(d). The judges also answered questions from the audience dealing with “Bring Your Own Device,” and preservation issues faced by large organizations.

Provider: Exterro (www.exterro.com), a legal project management software company, based in Beaverton, Ore. President/CEO: Bobby Balachandran.

Speakers: U.S. District Court jurists included Chief Judge Joy Conti, Western District of Pennsylvania; Judge Xavier Rodriguez, Western District of Texas; and Magistrate Judge David Waxse, District of Kansas. Scott Giordano, corporate technology counsel, Exterro, moderated.

Price: Free.

Air Date: Jan. 7, 2014. On demand here.

Delivery: Exterro did a great job choosing three interesting judges who in turn discussed three interesting cases from 2013. Conti discussed In re Pradaxa Products Liability Litigation (S.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2013) which discussed triggering the duty to preserve. Rodriquez analyzed Sekisui American Corp. v. Hart (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2013) which involved indecision over preservation obligations and proposed Rule 37. Waxse addressed Rajala v. McGuire Woods (D. Kan. 2010) and Rajala v. McGuire Woods (D. Kan. 2013), both involved clawback orders under FRE 502(d).

Key Takeaways:
• Sloppy implementation of litigation holds can result in million dollar fines.
• Litigation holds are not just the defendant’s problem, plaintiff’s need to make sure they are adequately implementing litigation holds.
• Malpractice per se? You may be at risk for a malpractice claim if you fail to request a 502(d) Clawback Order.
• Techies Wanted! Please create a product that allows businesses to monitor compliance when employees BYOD.
• No Excuse! Even a large company being threatened with numerous potential litigation still needs to preserve the data; it’s just the cost of doing business.

Grade: Overall, I give the presentation an A. The pace of the presentation was excellent, as was the format. The best part of the presentation was the practical advice from the judges. Following each case, each of the judges gave their best practices advice for EDD attorneys. The discussion also included a few questions from the audience, giving it a somewhat, albeit muted, interactive experience. The Q&A came after the second case—it would have been better if they saved it for the end and allowed time for more questions. The judges were so interesting and insightful, it was disappointing that they answered only two questions.

I would definitely recommend this video to inside and outside counsel at all levels of experience. It doesn’t hurt to be reminded how important implementing litigation holds can be, or the necessity of clawback orders. Plus it gives some interesting insight on what some judges think about proposed rule 37.