I have done two podcasts and a video recently which you may find a painless way of absorbing information about electronic disclosure.
I was interviewed last week by Karl Schieneman of ESIBytes earlier this week, on an introduction from Mike Taylor of I-Lit. The interview was given the title E-Discovery Versus E-Disclosure – How The English Handle E-Discovery.
We covered, amongst other things:
- my emphasis on technology as an adjunct to the brain, rather than vice versa
- the new UK Practice Direction and Electronic Documents Questionnaire
- the difference between an approach which collects everything and then seeks the things which matter versus the approach in Goodale v Ministry of Justice which focuses from the outset on the things which matter and work outwards from there if necessary
- the pressure which US-style spoliation threats gives to maximise discovery
- the value of predictive coding and other technical aids and the impetus which Goodale (again) gives to adopt this approach
- the alleged “gold standard” of manual review (and its advantages in terms of billable hours, if not of proportionality)
- the importance of cooperation
- the need for education of both lawyers and judges.
Inevitably (this being a US interview), we turned to the conflict between the US demands for documents and EU privacy and data protection laws. In this area, as in others, the more focused the original scope of disclosure / discovery, the less work than there is to do in identifying and, if necessary, redacting, private (or privileged) information.
I should give credit, as I was not able to in the broadcast, to Craig Ball for my illustration from the days when a client handed over a single file of key documents which you used as the starting point for your investigations. It is something he said at a panel we did together at the Masters Conference in Washington in October, and I find it a useful picture to draw when illustrating the value of the approach outlined by Master Whitaker in the Goodale case.
This was an informal, almost off-the-cuff, interview, which I much prefer as a participant to the (equally useful) semi-scripted ones which I do from time to time. The other broadcast which I have done recently was a more formal one with CPDCast – “formal” in this context meaning that I had some opportunity and obligation to prepare in advance and that it was necessarily more structured and comprehensive.
As its name implies, CPDCast is a formal educational service meeting UK CPD requirements, where subscribers can gain access to a wide range of subjects. My interview was called E-Disclosure Practice Direction Update – October 2010 and was timed to coincide with the launch of PD31B on 1 October. It gives a summary of the PD’s main obligations and summarises some of the cases of the last few months.
I recently mentioned in passing a video recording which I did with the College of Law on electronic disclosure. It will be a two-parter, the first part being recorded by Senior Master Whitaker. This will take some time to produce, and I will point you towards it when it is published.