On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Hot Topics in Electronic Discovery 2018: What Corporate and Outside Counsel Need to Know

Released on: Sep. 24, 2018
Running Time: 06:06:40
The demands and costs of e-discovery in litigation continue to grow. Nearly every case now involves some sort of e-discovery, and it is essential to know how to effectively and fairly handle the many issues that can arise. Our outstanding faculty of experienced lawyers, judges, and e-discovery professionals will provide an inside look at the current state of e-discovery, give tips for avoiding pitfalls litigants have encountered in the years since the passage of the federal rules, and discuss important ethical issues in light of court decisions imposing discovery sanctions and outlining the duties of outside and in-house counsel.

This program is designed to provide counsel with the understanding necessary to advise clients on state, federal and international e-discovery strategic and technology issues. You will take away practical strategies you can use when you are called upon to provide guidance on e-retention policies or e-discovery.

Topics Include

  • Updates on the latest legal developments in e-discovery
  • Hear from judges, in-house counsel, outside counsel, and others facing the myriad of e-discovery issues that can arise in litigation
  • Gain the perspectives of experienced e-discovery attorneys who have encountered problems similar to those your clients will likely face
  • Get practical tips for conducting efficient and defensible discovery in the electronic age
  • Learn why sanctions are imposed for e-discovery violations and how you can avoid similar issues

Special Features: Earn one hour of ethics credit

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:06:40]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:09:27]
    Gary A. Adler
  • View from the Bench: E-Discovery Law – What the Judges are Seeing [01:02:40]
    Hon. James C. Francis IV (Ret.), Hon. Andrew J. Peck (Ret.), Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith, Hon. David J. Waxse (Ret.)
  • Update on Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery: Advances and Challenges [00:57:31]
    Maura R. Grossman, Ashish Prasad, Gilbert S. Keteltas
  • Preservation of Electronically Stored Information and Amended Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [00:58:52]
    Thomas Y. Allman, Melissa R. Clark, Jeffrey J. Fowler
  • Data Privacy and E-Discovery [01:01:21]
    John J. Rosenthal
  • Discovery Requests and Responses [00:57:15]
    Steven C. Bennett, Tara S. Lawler, Ronald J. Hedges
  • Ethics in E-Discovery [00:59:34]
    David J. Lender

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Ariana J. Tadler, Kevin F. Brady, and Karin Scholz Jenson, The Sedona Conference “Jumpstart Outline”: Questions to Ask Your Client & Your Adversary to Prepare for Preservation, Rule 26 Obligations, Court Conferences & Requests for Production (March 2016)
    James A. Sherer
  • Court Guideposts for the Path to TAR Adoption (September 24, 2017)
    James A. Sherer, David Choi, Csilla Boga-Lofaro
  • Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)
    Lauri Sawyer
  • Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S.Ct. 1178 (US 2017)
    Lauri Sawyer
  • Winfield v. City of New York, WL 5664852 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
    Lauri Sawyer
  • Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y 3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
    Lauri Sawyer
  • The Sedona Conference Practical In-House Approaches for Cross-Border Discovery & Data Protection (June 2016)
    James A. Sherer
  • Cat3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., 164 F. Supp.3d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
    James C. Francis
  • Chen–Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 285 F.R.D. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
    James C. Francis
  • Fischer v. Forrest, No. 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP), 14 Civ. 1307 (PAE) (AJP), 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017)
    Andrew J. Peck
  • Hyles v. New York City, No. 10 Civ. 3119 (AT)(AJP), 2016 WL 4077114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)
    Andrew J. Peck
  • Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, et al., No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012)
    Andrew J. Peck
  • Tinto v. Vale, No. 14 Civ. 3042 (RMB)(AJP), 2015 WL 4367250 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015)
    Andrew J. Peck
  • United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Sample Rule 502(d) Order
    Andrew J. Peck
  • Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery (Taylor & Francis Group, Forthcoming 2018)
    Gordon V. Cormack, Maura R. Grossman
  • Order Regarding Search Methodology for Electronically Stored Information, In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. 2018)
    Maura R. Grossman
  • Spoliation of ESI Today (June 4, 2018)
    Thomas Y. Allman
  • EU Privacy Shield: Practical Implications for U.S. Litigation (April 2016)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Practical Responses to the EU Privacy Versus U.S. Discovery Conflict (2011)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Discovery Requests and Responses (Substantive Outline) (July 2018)
    Ronald J. Hedges, Tara S. Lawler, Steven C. Bennett
  • What Might Be “Reasonable Steps?” (February 20, 2018)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Ronald J. Hedges and Amy Walker Wagner, Competence With Electronically Stored Information: What Does It Currently Mean In the Context of Litigation and How Can Attorneys Achieve It?, Bloomberg BNA, Digital Discovery & e-Evidence (July 21, 2016)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Kristen B. Weil and Ronald J. Hedges, The “Internet of Things”: New Challenges in Civil Discovery, Pretrial Practice & Discovery, Vol. 26 No. 2 (March 20, 2018)
    Ronald J. Hedges
  • Ethics and Electronic Discovery (November 13, 2017)
    David J. Lender

Presentation Material

  • Electronic Discovery Institute 2018: What Corporate and Outside Counsel Need to Know
    Gary A. Adler
  • Update on Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) in E-Discovery
    Maura R. Grossman, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Ashish Prasad
  • Amended Rule 37(e) and the Duty to Preserve
    Thomas Y. Allman, Melissa R. Clark, Jeffrey J. Fowler
  • Spoilation of ESI: Amended Rule 37(e) [UPDATED]
    Thomas Y. Allman
  • Data Privacy and E-Discovery
    John J. Rosenthal
  • Discovery Requests and Responses
    Steven C. Bennett, Ronald J. Hedges, Tara S. Lawler
  • Ethics and Electronic Discovery
    David J. Lender
Chairperson(s)
Gary A. Adler ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Speaker(s)
Thomas Y. Allman ~ Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law
Steven C. Bennett ~ Park Jensen Bennett LLP
Melissa R. Clark ~ Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
Jeffrey J. Fowler ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Hon. James C. Francis IV (Ret.) ~ Distinguished Lecturer, CUNY School of Law
Maura R. Grossman ~ Research Professor, David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science,University of Waterloo
Ronald J. Hedges ~ Dentons US LLP
Gilbert S. Keteltas ~ Baker & Hostetler LLP
Tara S. Lawler ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
David J. Lender ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Ashish Prasad ~ Vice President and General Counsel, eTERA Consulting, LLC
John J. Rosenthal ~ Winston & Strawn LLP
Hon. Lisa Margaret Smith ~ United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Hon. David J. Waxse (Ret.) ~ Former United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, District of Kansas
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.