On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Electronic Discovery Nuts & Bolts 2017

Released on: Sep. 11, 2017
Running Time: 03:10:51

Learn the basics of e-discovery law and practice. 

E-discovery permeates nearly every facet of litigation today, and attorneys tasked with meeting today’s complicated e-discovery requirements must recognize the nuances and technicalities involved.  Join our faculty of experienced e-discovery practitioners to gain the tools and strategies to efficiently and competently navigate the e-discovery landscape.

Attorneys and e-discovery professionals new to the e-discovery world, or those looking for a basic update, will find this program valuable.

Topics Include:

  • The first things to do when you receive a case involving e-discovery
  • The nuts and bolts of preservation, Rule 26(f) conferences, document search and review, privilege protection, and production formats
  • Preservation and collection strategies
  • Search and review processes

Credit Offered: CLE, CPD, CPE and CFE

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:10:51]

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

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:13:40]
    Steven C. Bennett
  • E-discovery: Data Preservation Process [00:57:06]
    Lauri Sawyer
  • E-discovery: Data Review Process [01:00:58]
    Marla S.K. Crawford
  • E-discovery: Data Production Process [00:59:07]
    Steven C. Bennett

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Sedona Conference®: Practical In-House Approaches for Cross-Border Discovery & Data Protection, 17 Sedona Conf. J. 397 (2016) (handout)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Foreword by Hon. John M. Facciola, United States District Court, District of Columbia; Gordon V. Cormack and Maura R. Grossman, University of Waterloo, The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review (2013)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Kevin F. Brady, Redgrave LLP, Karin Scholz Jenson, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg LLP, The Sedona Conference®: “Jumpstart Outline” (March 2016) (handout)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Assoc. v. California Dept. Educ., No. 2:11-CV-3471-KJM-AC, 2013 WL 1326301 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013)
  • Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc., No. 16-CV-00238-NDF, 2017 WL 1947537 (D. Wyo. May 10, 2017)
  • Hsueh v. New York State Dept. of Fin. Services, No. 15 Civ. 3401 (PAC), 2017 WL 1194706 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017)
  • Guidelines for Cases Involving Electronically Stored Information (ESI), The United States District Court for the District of Kansas
    David J. Waxse
  • David J. Waxse and Brenda Yoakum-Kriz, Experts on Computer-Assisted Review: Why Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Should Apply to Their Use, Washburn Law Journal, Spring 2013
    David J. Waxse
  • Cat3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., 164 F. Supp.3d 488 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)
  • Chen–Oster; v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 285 F.R.D. 294 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012)
  • Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, 15 F. Supp.3d 466 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2014)
  • Fischer v. Forrest, No. 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP), 14 Civ. 1307 (PAE) (AJP), 2017 WL 773694 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017)
  • Hyles v. New York City, et al., No. 10 Civ. 3119 (AT)(AJP) 2016 WL 4077114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016)
  • Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, et al., No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 1446534 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012)
  • Tinto v. Vale, No. 14 Civ. 3042 (RMB)(AJP), 2015 WL 4367250 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015)
  • Ronald J. Hedges, Dentons US LLP, Practice Pointer: A Primer On Rule 37(e) Remedial Measures—A.K.A. Sanctions, Bloomberg BNA, Digital Discovery & e-Evidence, August 4, 2016
  • Data Preservation Obligations in Litigation: What Corporate and Outside Counsel Need to Know (Substantive Outline) (2017)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • The Enhanced Challenges of Discovery from Emerging Data Sources (2017)
    Gilbert S. Keteltas
  • Thomas Y. Allman, Former General Counsel and Chair Emeritus of the Sedona Conference®, Working Group 1 on Electronic Discovery, Amended Rule 37(e): Case Summaries (2017)
    Maura R. Grossman
  • Thomas Y. Allman, Former General Counsel and Chair Emeritus of the Sedona Conference®, Working Group 1 on Electronic Discovery, Spoliation After Amended Rule 37(e) (2017)
    Maura R. Grossman
  • Thomas Y. Allman, Former General Counsel and Chair Emeritus of the Sedona Conference®, Working Group 1 on Electronic Discovery, Proportionality Today (2016)
    Maura R. Grossman
  • Thomas Y. Allman, Former General Counsel and Chair Emeritus of the Sedona Conference®, Working Group 1 on Electronic Discovery, The 2015 Civil Rules Amendments (2016)
    Maura R. Grossman
  • EU Privacy Shield: Practical Implications for U.S. Litigation (April 2016)
    Steven C. Bennett
  • Ashish S. Prasad and Julie Richer, Production of Documents to Federal Agencies, In-House Defense Quarterly, Fall 2016
    Ashish S. Prasad, Julie Richer
  • Ethics and Electronic Discovery (Substantive Outline) (November 18, 2016)
    David J. Lender

Presentation Material


  • Preservation and Litigation Holds
    Lauri Sawyer
  • Data Review Process
    Marla S.K. Crawford
  • Privilege Protection
    Steven C. Bennett
Chairperson(s)
Steven C. Bennett ~ Park Jensen Bennett LLP
Speaker(s)
Marla S.K. Crawford ~ Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
Lauri Sawyer ~ Jones Day
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.

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

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Electronic Discovery Nuts & Bolts 2018 (New York, NY) Sep. 7, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Electronic Discovery 2018  
Electronic Discovery 2017 Steven C Bennett, Park Jensen Bennett LLP
Gary A Adler, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.