I spent last week in Hong Kong at the Asia eDiscovery Exchange 2012 organised by InnoXcell. A lot of good stuff came out of that conference and it will take me a while to turn my draft report into a readable blog post.
I have missed (or, at least, have not been able to pass on) a number of interesting articles which came by whilst I was away. eDisclosure / eDiscovery continues to generate interesting news and comment, much of which crosses jurisdictional divides. I will try and link to some of it during this week.
Tomorrow, I go to Leeds for another eDisclosure seminar in the series organised by MBL Seminars. These are three-hour sessions whose primary focus is the use of technology in eDisclosure. The first part covers the relevant rules and some of the cases, with the rest showing how a combination of technology and adroit use of the discretionary components in the rules can give you the upper hand at case management conferences.
On Wednesday, I am doing a session in London with Nigel Murray of Huron Legal and HHJ Simon Brown QC. The latter has just published a further article in the New Law Journal about costs management and disclosure. The first one is here. Together they might act as a primer for anyone dealing with even modest amounts of electronic documents in civil litigation.
Also this week, I am doing the third in a series of podcasts about predictive coding recorded with James Moeskops of Millnet. The last one included contributions from Dominic Lacey and Jamie Tanner of Eversheds is about a case in which predictive coding was used. The one coming up this week will attempt to look into the future of predictive coding in the UK context.
Lastly, I am due to record a podcast with Philip Favro of Symantec. The aim is to give a brief explanation of the key differences between US eDiscovery and eDisclosure in the UK. There is the dawning realisation in the US that the rest of the common-law world has rather different views on discovery, going well beyond the stupid 1999 UK decision to give the subject a new name in the hope thereby of improving it. it is good to have the opportunity to explain the merits of the approaches taken in non-US jurisdictions.
