Author Archives: John Pappas

mm

About John Pappas

Midwest Director at Catalyst Repository Systems. Experienced e-discovery attorney and consultant specializing in trial practice, commercial litigation, injury litigation, investigation—and litigation—related project services, data collection, processing, search and analytics consultation, predictive coding and ranking, document hosting, scanning, coding, productions and document review.

Is Mandatory TAR on the Horizon?

Is  mandatory technology-assisted review on the horizon? This was question that Tom Gricks and John Pappas posed in a recent Bloomberg article.

Cost continues to be the primary issue lying at the heart of e-discovery disputes, particularly with the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), specifically Rule 26, mandating that the scope of discovery in litigation be proportional to the value and needs of the case. Judges are increasingly being called upon to resolve these disputes and explicitly consider the fact that the cost and efficiency of different review techniques and technologies can still vary widely. Continue reading

How to Create a Knowledge-Driven Discovery Business—While Containing Costs

Corporate legal department management is quickly changing from a legal to a business process. Legal professionals, along with their business counterparts, are looking critically at how to control costs and meet ever-tightening budgets. Gone are times wistfully referred to by outside counsel as “the salad days,” where the only cost controls law departments put in place were case reserves and ever-expanding litigation budgets. Running the legal department like the rest of the corporate business units is now the rule, not the exception.

With litigation costs—and particularly discovery and document review—comprising larger and larger shares of spend, this is a ripe area to impose cost controls. However, more often than not, even the most forward-thinking in-house legal professionals don’t have the tools or insight to know where they can improve in discovery spend. Rather, most of this information resides with any number of disparate e-discovery vendors and law firms, making it near-impossible to make real-time, data-driven decisions. Continue reading

Hon. Paul Grimm and Kevin Brady of Redgrave Outline Admissibility of Digital Evidence

“Objection, foundation.”

To any seasoned trial attorney, the foundation objection shouldn’t trip up anyone. Akin to blocking and tackling in football, laying foundation for admission of evidence is almost taken for granted. But ask that same trial lawyer (only after a few adult beverages) if he or she has ever been tripped up on a foundation objection, many, if not most, will say they have. Heck, it happened to me on a couple of occasions when I was trying cases. Continue reading