Extract from Kelly Twigger’s article “CaseoftheWeek Episode 119: Is Your Methodology for Identifying Relevant Documents Privileged?”
In Episode 119, our CEO, Kelly Twigger discusses whether a party can rely on self-collection and when parties must exchange the details of their preservation and production protocols in 𝐋𝐲𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐯. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨.
Welcome to this week’s episode of our Case of the Week series brought to you by eDiscovery Assistant in partnership with ACEDS. My name is Kelly Twigger. I’m the CEO and founder at eDiscovery Assistant, which is a platform that delivers ediscovery knowledge on demand. Thanks so much for joining me today. Last week at Relativity Fest, we announced that within the platform, we have integrated generative AI to create summaries of each of the decisions in our case law database. Those are now available to users, and we’d love to hear your feedback on them. If you’re interested in any more information about that, you can feel free to reach out to us.
Each week on our Case of the Week I choose a recent decision in ediscovery and talk to you about the practical implications. This week’s decision covers two important areas in ediscovery: self-collection and whether the process to identify responsive materials in discovery is privileged. This is a decision that we covered on the case law panel at Relativity Fest last week.
That panel also included Judge Allison Goddard, as well as Bill Hamilton from the University of Florida College of Law. David Horrigan of Relativity moderated the panel, and viewing of that panel is available to be viewed remotely if you were a registrant for Relativity Fest but didn’t happen to catch it. It was a really interesting discussion, and I encourage you to take a look.