Talk:Electronic discovery

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Economic sanctions#Trade sanctions|sanctions]] The anchor (#Trade sanctions) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Quality of Article

I can see where this entire article needs considerable work (including some rework). Being new to editing on Wikipedia, I just made a few test updates on a couple of the points, which worked out fine. I am very familiar and experienced in the subject matter of both electronic and paper discovery and I believe can add some very significant detail and references for this article. I will follow-up on this soon, but wanted to mention the intent here. Content of course will be entirely objective in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efeistel (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Collection

I've never edited wikipedia myself. I'm going to start here, but I'm willing to try to edit the main article once I gather enough information to properly meet the standards. Any thoughts? worthy addition, for those in the industry? I'm sure I'll get flamed by Lit Support here.. Self Collection is becoming a hotter topic. Should custodians be allowed to collect their own data? This is a strong candidate for the next big trend. A judge in Delaware recently opined that self collection is "not allowed in his court" (Roffe vs Eagle Rock Energy); while the opinion does not seem to completely exclude all use of self collection, it is still one of the strongest opinions against it at the moment.
Self collection can seriously drop the cost of E-Discovery, since companies can leverage their own staff instead of using consultants. There are issues, including verifiability of the process and quality of collection, but automated tools that have been coming out that are aimed at non-experts..essentially proactively addressing these issues with varying degrees of effectiveness (COFEE, BitFlare, EnCase Portable, etc). This will become a Big Deal as the courts and industry decides what is allowed in self collection, and what types of tools that didn't exist three years ago will make this happen.

66.95.34.54 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESI: Social Media data

I can see a need for adding "social media data" as a type of discoverable ESI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and made updates on different flavors of ESI including social media, chat, collaboration tools etc. Hifisamurai (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubulake

Somehow, the only writeup on Wikipedia of Zubulake is as a bullet point in UBS AG#Controversies. Given the importance of that case in establishing precedents for E-discovery - or at least in pointing out the inadequacy of existing rules - it would probably be good for someone with the appropriate expertise to write an article. I know that defering to an expert isn't the usual Wikipedia way, but I sincerely worry that any article I write would be so deficient as to actually worsen the encyclopedia. Ccreitz (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coding of paper

This sentence doesn't make sense to me, unless it is part of the stimulus plan, via creating document coding jobs for coeds to work on in their spare time, "Coding of paper documents, however, will not go away until the pen is completely replaced by the computer." Coding of paper documents was replaced by full text databases about a decade ago when the price of OCR-ing became cheaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.160.2 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without defending whether that sentence fit in the article, it is not true that coding of paper has been obsoleted and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be. OCR may be cheaper but it remains unreliable. It also has the problem that it leaves the document as unstructured data. Intelligent coding turns the document's contents into structured (or at least semi-structured) data. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new link

So, why is it that this link circumvents Wikipedia policy? E_dog95'^{Hi '} 03:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What link are you talking about? PeetMoss (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link for Electronic Discovery Reference Model is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.63.90 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using sort keys in categories

This article was categorized under Civil Procedure category with the [key] "Discovery, electronic" but that sort key was causing the Wikipedia periodic dump file enwiki-20090306-categorylinks.sql to not parse the category link of this article correctly. We need to identify a liaison with the authors of the dump so we can revert to using sort keys. Pmehra5730 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-written article

Judging by the article history, as well as my own opinion, are we in agreement that this is a poorly-written article? I think it can be much better - while eDiscovery has potential to be a sprawling topic, I feel like this article really misses all the important aspects of it, in favor of discussion of minor annoyances. I am willing to take on the task of re-writing this, assuming it won't be reverted to it's current state unless I really botch it. So say we all?

I agree. Attention to this article is long overdue, and any work on it—whether it needs heavy editing or not—would be progress. Chris Spizzirri (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to push the article in the direction I think it should go (in terms of framing the important issues). There's plenty of work that needs to be done (and citations that need to be added), but I did some work on this and wanted to share my progress so far. User:Antonymous —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRCP Amendements

I don't know enough to write on the subject, but I know the US FRCP have been updated effective 2 December 2015. Farside268 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vague

i was hoping for a specific discussion of Relativity, which seems to be the most used such product. 50.90.215.156 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)gtbear at gmail[reply]