Exterro's E-Discovery Breakdown
Exterro's E-Discovery Breakdown, published by Exterro, focuses on topics related to electronic discovery processes and data risk management within legal contexts. The blog covers practical aspects of e-discovery such as legal hold management, early case assessment, data collection and processing, and digital forensics. It also addresses compliance with regulations like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), emphasizing preparation and strategy for meet-and-confer conferences and data subject access requests. The content includes case law analysis, technology solutions for managing electronically stored information (ESI), and best practices for handling data breaches and public records requests.
Blog Authors
Latest from Exterro's E-Discovery Breakdown
Be Prepared! Don’t Show Up to Your Rule 26(F) Meet-and-Confer With Nothing But a Boilerplate
Case Law Alert: If You Fail, Try Again
DriveTime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew (S.D. Ohio April 18, 2019) re-emphasizes the high and “stringent” standard for granting an adverse inference instruction under FRCP 37(e)(2).
Overview:
In this defamation case between two airlines, the plaintiffs objected to the magistrate…
CCPA…The Most Significant Impact on Litigation Since FRCP
Friday Funnies: Exterro’s E-Discovery Meme Series (Budget Approved! Edition)
For an e-discovery team, there’s not many things more worth a big celebration than getting budget for e-discovery software–so make sure you do it in style. If you don’t have budget yet, why not check out our E-Discovery Software Budget…
4 Trends Shaping E-Discovery Today
Friday Funnies: Exterro’s E-Discovery Meme Series (Water Polo Edition)
Case Law Alert: Deleted Text Messages = No Adverse Inference Because No Intent
DriveTime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew (S.D. Ohio April 18, 2019) re-emphasizes the high and “stringent” standard for granting an adverse inference instruction under FRCP 37(e)(2).
Overview:
In this fraud case between an employee and employer, the plaintiff filed motion…




