BLLAWG

Indiana Court Calls for Production of Social Networking Profiles

admin — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:16:26 +0000

A recent case filed in the Southern District Court of Indiana dealt with the difficult issue of discovery of social networking site information on Facebook and MySpace. As discovery of social media is a relatively new frontier, the court had a difficult decision to make in determining the scope of discovery. It will be interesting to see what trends in court decisions develop as more and more cases involve social networking sites and information.

On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asked for a discovery conference after Defendants Simply Storage Management, LLC and O.B. Management Services, Inc. requested production of two of the claimants’ “internet social networking site (SNS) profiles and other communication from their Facebook and MySpace.com accounts” and “information about the claimants’ prior employment since 2003.” Defendants’ production request resulted from Plaintiff’s filing against Simply Storage for “sexual harassment by a supervisor.” Claimants Tara Strahl and Joanalle Zupan cited “anxiety” and “post traumatic stress disorder” stemming from the alleged sexual harassment. EEOC disputed the production of SNS information “on the grounds that the requests [were] overboard, not relevant, unduly burdensome” and would “harass and embarrass the claimants.” EEOC instead asked for production to be “limited to content that directly addresses or comments on matters alleged in the complaint.”

The court had a difficult decision to make; namely, “to define appropriately broad limits—but limits nevertheless—on the discoverability of social communications in light of a subject as amorphous as emotional and mental health.” In determining a ruling, the Court considered Rule 26(b) which states, “For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved….” It also determined the following:

-SNS content is not shielded from discovery simply because it is ‘locked’ or ‘private.’ …a person’s expectation and intent that her communications be maintained as private is not a legitimate basis for shielding those communications from discovery….

-SNS content must be produced when it is relevant to a claim or defense in the case.

-Allegations of depression, stress disorders, and like injuries do not automatically render all SNS communications relevant…

Finally, the Court ruled that, “It is reasonable to expect severe emotional or mental injury to manifest itself in some SNS content, and an examination of that content might reveal whether onset occurred, when and the degree of distress.” In determining the scope of production, the Court decided that “any profiles, postings, or messages (including status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, blog entries)…that reveal, refer or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state” are relevant and should be produced. On the matter of information relating to the claimants’ prior employment, the Court determined that Defendants had not shown how the information was relevant to their case and therefore, Plaintiff was not required to produce the information.

Court Extends ESI Discovery from 5 to 18 Years

admin — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:36:30 +0000

In this interesting Order, the Court makes a big swing from allowing five years back of ESI to be collected, to allowing eighteen years. This will definitely result in a large volume of data collected.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company filed a complaint against Teva Pharmaceuticals for an infringement on U.S. Patent No. 6,034,239. Takeda claimed that Teva violated the plaintiff’s New Drug Application, which covered the drug under patent until 2010, by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application in July of 2009. In response, Teva stated “that they [did] not infringe the ‘239 patent and that the patent [was] invalid as being obvious and for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Thus, the defendant requested ESI from 13 years prior, which would “include…research data that [would] reveal how and when the alleged invention was conceived…” Takeda opposed the motion for discovery, asking the Court to “limit its discovery obligations for ESI to 2005 through the present pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B).” According to the order, the court considered:

…whether the patent was obvious at the time of the alleged invention, when the inventors first conceived the invention, whether the inventors were aware of an undisclosed best mode during patent prosecution, and what the claims meant to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

After analyzing these factors, the court concluded that ESI from the time period prior to 2005 was “highly relevant to at least Takeda’s claims of unexpected properties and secondary considerations.” The Court further stated that “Takeda’s supporting declarations [were] rife with gaps relating to its pre-2005 ESI and [did] not satisfy Takeda’s burden.” Also, although the motion for discovery exceeded the usual 5 year time limit, the court ruled that the defendants had “good cause” and granted the motion “to compel production of an additional 13 years of ESI.”

New York Supreme Court Provides Detailed Discovery Protocol

admin — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:27:25 +0000

The New York Supreme Court considered aspects of discovery of a hard drive for a recent marital dispute. In this opinion, the Court surpassed mere decision and instead, also outlined strict guidelines to be followed in connection to discovery of the hard drive.

On February 4, 2010, plaintiff Sarah Schreiber requested that a hard drive of defendant Marc Schreiber be given to the court for forensic examination. Schreiber claimed that the defendant “concealed his income and assets in an attempt to avoid paying her a fair share of marital income and assets earned or acquired during [their] thirty-year marriage.” Investigation of the hard drive would allow the plaintiff to discover information relating to the defendant’s “’bizarre’ financial activities” which, she claimed, were not procured during discovery. As an alternative to the defendant producing the hard drive to the court, the plaintiff offered that her expert be allowed permission to copy the hard drive at the office, and provide the copy to the court.

The defendant opposed the motion on the grounds that the plaintiff’s “request [was] unnecessary and burdensome,” as he had already produced the entirety of documents to her. The court considered CPLR 3101(a), which states that if information is ‘material and relevant,’ it can be compelled through motions. However, the court must ‘oversee the discovery process…to insure that undue prejudice and delay do not occur as the results of additional and/or potentially open-ended discovery, including unwarranted fishing expeditions.’ The court also had to consider that hard drives “are qualitatively different from other objects because of the difficulty in apprehending all that they contain.” To determine a ruling, the court looked to previous matrimonial cases where electronic information was involved.

In Etzion v. Etzion, the plaintiff-wife sought production of her husband’s computers and other digital information. The court decided that the plaintiff’s “allegation of defendant’s past fraudulent conduct did not justify plaintiff’s ‘all-encompassing’ demand for full system access.” In R.C. v. B.W., the plaintiff-husband sought the investigation of his wife’s computer. Justice Adams denied the plaintiff’s request, calling the discovery ‘a fishing expedition.’

Thus, in Schreiber v. Schreiber, the court denied plaintiff access to the hard drive, calling her request “overboard” and citing the “general” and “unlimited” nature of the discovery request. The court allowed “leave to renew by notice of motion within forty-five days after the date of service of the instant decision and order with notice of entry.” Upon renewal, the plaintiff is only allowed a clone of the hard drive. The court also outlined strict guidelines for renewal, as follows:

a) Discovery Referee: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on an attorney referee…to supervise discovery…

b) Forensic Computer Expert: The parties will have until the renewal deadline to agree on a forensic computer expert who will inspect and analyze the clone….

c) File Analysis: The expert will analyze the clone for evidence of any download, installation, and/or utilization of any software program, application, or utility which has the capability of deleting or altering files so that they are not recoverable…

d) Scope of Discovery: Plaintiff will list the key-word and other searches she proposes to have the expert run…Plaintiff is cautioned that she should narrowly tailor her search queries so as to expedite discovery and reduce the costs of litigation to the parties….

e) First-Level Review: …After performing searches, the expert will export to CDs or DVDs a copy of the native files and file fragments which were hit by such searches, and will deliver such media to defendant’s counsel to conduct a privilege review….

f) Second-Level Review: Within twenty days after delivery of the media containing the extracted files and file fragments, defendant’s counsel will deliver to plaintiff’s counsel in electronic format…all non privileged documents and information included in the extracted files…

g) Discovery Disputes: The referee will resolve any disputes concerning relevancy and privilege….

h) Cost Sharing: All costs for the expert will be borne by plaintiff…

i) Discovery Deadline: The parties should agree to a fast-track discovery schedule, subject to an outside ninety-day deadline within which discovery should be completed.

j) Retention of Clone: The discovery referee will keep the clone until the action is concluded, at which time the clone will be returned to defendant’s counsel for disposal.

For more information about this case, refer to the case site Schreiber v. Schreiber, 2010 WL 2735672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 25, 2010).

Wisconsin Court Denies Sanctions in Failure to Preserve Claim

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:11:03 +0000

On August 26, 2009, Mindy Olson brought a suit against Michael Sax and Goodwill Industries, claiming that Goodwill violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “by discriminating against her based on gender and pregnancy when it terminated her employment.” Goodwill fired Olson on the grounds that she had submitted inaccurate credit slips. Olson also called for sanctions against her former employer due to its “failure to preserve a…video tape recording of Olson’s alleged theft of property from Goodwill.” As Goodwill’s video surveillance system only retains records for 29 days, they referenced Rule 37(e), which states that “sanctions may not be imposed…where electronically stored evidence is lost as the result of routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.”

The courts considered Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v Grant and Silvestri v Gen. Motors Corp in deciding whether the Defendants’ actions merited sanctions. In these previous cases, “spoliation sanctions” were awarded only where a party destroyed evidence because of knowledge of impending litigation and when “evidence was destroyed intentionally.” Even though the Defendant had a “duty to preserve evidence,” Olson’s motion for sanctions was ultimately denied because the court could find no “evidence that Goodwill engaged in ‘bad faith’ destruction of evidence.”

A Look at Gibson Dunn’s 2010 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update

admin — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:35:47 +0000

Gibson Dunn posted its 2010 Mid-Year Electronic Discovery and Information Law Update last week. The update “provides an overview of recent e-discovery developments and trends…between January 1 and June 17, 2010.” According to the report, both federal and state courts are actively issuing e-discovery opinions, which follows a trend from 2009.

Courts are also “[taking] an active role in providing more guidance and certainty to e-discovery practitioners,” according to Gibson Dunn. This new role is evidenced in the Electronic Discovery Pilot Program in Illinois, which is outlined in this blog.

As a growing trend, sanctions have been levied “on outside counsel for failing to adequately supervise a client’s collection and preservation of [ESI].” Interestingly though, if an attorney failed but was able to prove they made every effort to meet discovery expectations, they avoided sanctions.

In terms of preservation, Gibson Dunn notes that courts have started insisting on preservation of “outlier ESI,” which includes all electronic information, not just email. Gibson Dunn also pointed out that, in a “maturation of e-discovery law, courts this year have stated that…what is reasonable will be judged…according to ‘clearly established applicable standards…which have been set by years of judicial decisions;’” rather than in a “fact-specific manner,” as was done previously.

The report shows that there is not yet a consistent trend in determining the treatment of search methodologies. Gibson Dunn notes that several courts have “refused to compel productions where the requesting party could not justify its proposed search terms.” Gibson Dunn’s report also outlines a case in which a party was sanctioned because it “refused to ‘reasonably narrow’ document requests through specified search terms.” However, some courts are not “[taking] an active role in the design of search terms or specific search methodology.” One court cited “the wilderness of keyword search usage” as a refusal to deciding a party’s search terms.

Courts’ tendencies in determining privilege leaned toward following the 2008 Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which “[provides] uniform rules governing the waiver of attorney-client privilege and work product protection due to inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications.”

With communication technology and social media becoming more prevalent in society, courts must decide how to rule on these new forms of ESI. One issue Gibson Dunn noted is “whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their electronic communications.” This issue is further outlined in this blog, about a SWAT-team member’s text message privacy on a city-issued pager. Gibson Dunn also directly references trends in social media stating, “Courts…acknowledge that discovery from social networking sits may carry different privacy concerns than traditional discovery.” They also predict that courts may soon require preservation and search of ESI from social networking sites.

E-discovery trends extend internationally, Gibson Dunn notes, with “United States courts compelling cross-border discovery from both parties and non-parties, even where foreign law bars production of the information.” A recent case involving Gucci is evidence of this growing trend.

As we enter the second half of 2010, these trends will become more established in the court system. For more information, look out for Gibson Dunn’s 2010 Year-End Report.

Court Orders Discovery Request Valid in Counterfeiting Case

admin — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:40:58 +0000

In 2009, Gucci brought suit against Curveal Fashion for “trademark infringement…trademark counterfeiting, trademark dilution…and deceptive trade practices.” This order describes the resulting discovery dispute in which Gucci America, Inc. claims that United Overseas Bank “transferred approximately $900,000 received from the sale of counterfeit goods over the past 12 months to an account in the name of Defendant Curveal Fashion.” Gucci subpoenaed United Overseas Bank for documents containing information about Curveal’s bank accounts after Judge Sullivan stated that any “third party receiving a subpoena pursuant to this Order shall produce documents responsive to such requests.” UOB refused to produce the documents, claiming that “doing so would violate banking secrecy laws in Malaysia.” Thus, the court needed to “[determine] whether to order discovery of documents and information ‘in the fact of objections by foreign states.’” Pursuant to the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 442, the court followed a five-factor test in balancing the United States interest in the foreign production of documents. These included:

-The importance of the documents or information requested to the litigation

-The degree of specificity of the request

-Whether the information originated in the United States

-The availability of alternative means of retrieving the information

-The extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States

In addition to these points, the court also considered “the hardship compliance on the party or witness from whom discovery is sought [and] the good faith of the party resisting discovery.” However, after considering the factors, the court concluded that that “the United States interest in fully and fairly adjudicating matters before its courts…outweighs Malaysia’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its banking customers’ records.”

Third Parties to Invest in Litigation

admin — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:38:18 +0000

Initially finding a foothold in Australian and British litigation, third-party litigation funding has made its way to the U.S. Investors have started staking claim in large, corporate lawsuits. The reason? According to this article, investors are “on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.” Burford Capital Ltd. and Juridica Investments Limited have both invested millions in cases over the last three years. From the looks of it, returns are good. From one lawsuit, Burford “stands to receive 35 percent to 67 percent of any recovery.” A partner at Patton Boggs, James Tyrrell Jr., believes that in the down economy, “sophisticated investors [are] hunting for a new source to generate huge returns.”

However, not all are proponents of outside investors. In October, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.” The Chamber believes that “outside funding will increase the number of lawsuits…and could impact attorney-client privilege through the disclosure of confidential material to outside parties.” In its nascent state, many are reluctant to trust this new trend; partially because “the acquiring of an interest in a lawsuit’s recovery” has been prohibited in the past.

These reasons aren’t solid enough to discount the possible benefits such investors can provide. The Chamber’s claim that investments are directly proportional to the number of cases seems a non sequitur. Also, although it was once prohibited, “28 states permit champetry, including New York.” With over half of the U.S. allowing outside parties to invest in lawsuits, it seems unreasonable for firms to feel reluctant to do the same. Investors assume a portion of the case fees, allowing clients to hire firms with higher fees than they would have been able to afford without the outside investment. Regardless of the skeptics, as more large firms like Cadwalader and Proskauer Rose are looking to outside investors for funding support, the face of litigation in the U.S. may look very different in the coming years.

Supreme Court Rules on Fourth Amendment Electronic Communication Case

admin — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:00:42 +0000

This opinion outlines the Supreme Court’s decision of a 2002 case involving the Ontario Police Department and its officers’ privacy rights as they pertain to electronic communication. The City provided pagers for sending and receiving text messages to the Ontario Police Department. The City’s “contract with its service provider…provided for a monthly limit on the number of characters each pager could send or receive, and specified that usage exceeding that number would result in an additional fee.” After several officers, including Quon, exceeded the limit, the OPD’s chief, Scharf, “sought to determine whether the existing limit was too low…or, conversely, whether the overages were for personal messages.” Upon the service provider’s procurement of transcripts, “it was discovered that many of Quon’s messages were not work related, and some were sexually explicit.” Quon was disciplined after the transcripts showed that “few of his on-duty messages related to police business.” Shortly after, Quon filed suit, claiming that his Fourth Amendment rights and the federal Stored Communications Act were violated. The court determined that since Scharf used the audit legitimately, to determine “the efficacy of existing character limits,” he did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Intent to Deceive Public is Key in Patent Case

admin — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:55:37 +0000

In September of 2007, plaintiff Matthew Pequignot “brought a qui tam action…alleging that Solo had falsely marked its products with ‘797 and ‘569 patent numbers for the purpose of deceiving the public, despite knowing that those patents had expired.” In August of 2009, the court granted Solo summary judgment, citing “no intent to deceive and hence no violation of law.” The court also “found Pequignot’s evidence of intent to deceive not relevant.” Recently, Pequignot brought this case to the appeals court and on June 10, 2010, a decision was reached. In the appellate case, the district court’s judgment is affirmed, in part, where the court states, “The combination of a false statement and knowledge that the statement was false creates a rebuttal presumption of intent to deceive the public.” The court vacates its previous decision, in part, stating that “…every falsely marked product constitutes an ‘offense.’” However, this determination is irrelevant because of the court’s decision that Solo did not intend to deceive the public.

Florida Court Orders Party to Pay for Discovery Error

admin — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:38:56 +0000

In this case, the District Court considered Lexington Insurance Company’s motion for sanctions and reviewed the magistrate judge’s previous recommendation of dismissal sanctions and reimbursement costs. Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC, after it was discovered that it failed to produce records, claimed it was unaware of an automatic function of the business’s computerized account management system that archived records after six months. During the Evidentiary Hearing, the Plaintiff acknowledged the missing documents and stated that the documents could be produced if “discovery [was]…reopened and extended for another four to six week period.” The Court denied the plaintiff’s request to be allowed to cure the production defect, citing that the archived files were “likely retrievable with minimal effort and at minimal expense…” The Court stated that the “[d]efendant’s demand for full production of all Treasure Island room folios [had] been clear, unambiguous, and frequent.” The order further states that the Plaintiff had “evidenced a pattern of inexcusable disregards for the authority of [the] Court and the larger civil discovery process.” Ultimately, “to insure the integrity of the discovery process,” the Court ordered Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC to pay Lexington Insurance Company $75K in expenses and costs.

IAALS Survey Provides Insight into Corporations

admin — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:19:07 +0000

The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System conducted a survey of Chief Legal Officers and General Counsel “in an effort to capture how businesses experience the American civil justice process.” The results, outlined in this report, suggest that litigants are concerned with the cost (both monetary and otherwise) of e-discovery. The results showed that within the last five years, most companies reported an increase in active cases and costs, without an increase in the number of trials. The most common culprit for the cost increase? According to the report, “Those who indicated increasing costs most commonly cited discovery in general, and e-discovery in particular, as the basis for the trend.” The report also stated that “exactly 65% indicated that their company does not have sufficient in-house or outside expertise and infrastructure to conduct an e-discovery search ‘without undue cost and delay.’” Other e-discovery concerns besides cost? 40%, 60% and 70% of respondents complained of violations of discovery rules, harassment of the opposition by “giving obviously inadequate answers” and “overuse of permitted discovery procedures,” respectively. With only 5% of respondents reporting “solely traditional paper discover yin all cases,” it is clear that e-discovery is overtaking traditional discovery in litigation. With this shift, firms need to be aware that there are solutions that are cost efficient and also increase case security and efficiency during e-discovery.

Google Patents

admin — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:03:28 +0000

“Google” was added to the Miriam-Webster Dictionary in 2006 and with Google Books on the horizon, it comes as no surprise that Google has entered another frontier—the world of patents. On Wednesday, Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos announced that the US Patent and Trademark Office has signed a two-year agreement with Google “to make bulk electronic patent and trademark public data available to the public in bulk form.” Google Patents will allow free public viewing of several types of patent documents including:

Patent grants and published applications
Trademark applications
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings
Patent classification information
Patent maintenance fee events
Patent and Trademark assignments

According to Kappos, the goal of the partnership is to “[provide] increased transparency…so companies and researchers can download [the information] for analysis and research.” Google’s engineering manager, Jon Orwant, agrees saying, “It’s important to make public data easier to gather and analyze.”

Are E-Discovery Services Taxable?

admin — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:08:35 +0000

In this IP case, Return Path Inc., et al. filed a motion to tax the costs related to using CBT Flint Partners, LLC to assist with the production of 1.4 million electronic documents and 6 versions of source code. CBT Flint Partners, LLC argued that fees associated with the collection of documents for production are not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Justice Thomas Thrash acknowledged the differing opinions as to whether or not U.S.C § 1920 allows recovery. In the end, the court cited the “highly technical” nature and necessity of e-discovery services in the electronic age [see page 11] to overrule the plaintiff’s objection and hold the $268, 311.22 in costs to be recoverable. The court supported its findings by reasoning that the “[t]axation of these costs will encourage litigants to exercise restraint in burdening the opposing party with the huge cost of unlimited demands for electronic discovery.”

E-Discovery Pilot Program in Illinois

admin — Fri, 14 May 2010 20:51:34 +0000

Here is an interesting article outlining the results of the first phase of the e-discovery pilot program in the Northern District of Illinois. Launched in May 2009, “the goal of the program…was to find ways to reduce the massive costs and burdens of electronic discovery.” It seems, in it’s first phase, that the program has been a success.

Electronic Discovery in the New York State Courts

admin — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:16:37 +0000

In a recent report, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau outline recommendations to improve electronic discovery management in the New York Court System. As Lippman points out, there need to be “measures in place to manage the complexities involved in electronic discovery” in an increasingly technological age. To help standardize e-discovery practices, Lippman and Pfau had the following key recommendations:

-Establishment of an e-discovery working group to serve as a statewide resource for
expertise and training;

-An addition to the Preliminary Conference form to highlight e-discovery issues and
responsibilities;

-Consideration of a court rule requiring counsel appearing at the preliminary conference to
be competent to discuss client technology systems;

-A pilot project designating e-discovery specialists to assist judges in supervising and
resolving protracted e-discovery disputes;

-Creation of an e-discovery journal by the judiciary reporting relevant decisions and trends;

-Pilot projects in selected courts regarding disclosure of e-discovery issues and
e-discovery compliance.

If implemented, these recommendations hold the potential for widespread adoption in courts, providing helpful e-discovery guidelines nationwide. For more information about the recommendations to e-discovery practices in the New York State Court System, view the report.

Bad Apple?

admin — Fri, 07 May 2010 19:09:02 +0000

The recent release and success of the iPad has sent Apple’s profits soaring. However, it appears that Apple may not be all smiles as it enters into a patent infringement suit leveled against it by the U.S. International Trade Commission and Elan Microelectronics. The Taiwanese company, represented by Paul Brinkman of Alston & Bird, is suing for patent infringement on “technology that is fundamental to multitouch user interfaces found in many computers and portable devices.” The suit targets both the iPhone and iPod Touch for their touch screen technology, which responds to input from multiple fingers, rather than one finger and the use of an additional button or cursor. Apple has yet to comment on the alleged infringement; however, as this is the third ITC case it has been involved in since January, it has a reason to remain mum. For more information about the ITC and this case, click here.

In another matter filed today, Nokia filed suit against Apple in the Western District of Wisconsin. In this suit, Nokia is claiming that Apple’s iPhones and iPad violate patents it holds relating to antenna design. Interestingly enough, the ITC was mentioned in the complaint when Nokia made the claim that Apple is aware of at least one of these particular patents because it raised the patent in discovery requests served on Nokia in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-701.

Follow us on Twitter!

admin — Mon, 03 May 2010 15:16:40 +0000

For more legal technology news, information and opinions, follow us on twitter @LLMinc.

The Man Behind the Computer Monitor

admin — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:37:11 +0000

After “attending” both LegalTech New York 2010 and Virtual LegalTech 2010, I couldn’t help but wonder about the importance of face time in an industry that has so little…face time. In the legal technology industry, training sessions are completed through Web demos. Meetings are conducted through conference calls. Files are exchanged virtually through electronic pathways to computers where processing and uploading seem to happen autonomously. The common forum for communication is email and phone “conversations” often consist of phone tag between parties over voicemail messages. Even contracts are often signed and digitally faxed between parties. Surely, this would have our hand-shaking forefathers shuddering in their graves.

Although face time is important in building trust at the beginning of a business relationship, perhaps as the legal industry and business trend towards digital communication, we need to rethink our definition of relationships. After countless emails, personalities begin to emerge from the faceless, typed-written words and a connection forms between the reader and writer. Each person has his/her own style of writing—some short and sweet, some funny. Emotions can be read—from frantic (near production time) to elated (when tracking numbers are exchanged). The receiver eventually knows what to expect from the sender when an email arrives. After personalities emerge through the digital barrier, handshaking and eye contact seem of little importance. Perhaps we can form virtual relationships that are comprised of something more than gigabytes. Perhaps these relationships are of a different kind. Like cloud computing, we are able to form cloud relationships in our minds, via digital communication.

Though, dictophiles needn’t worry. Even as technology progresses and relationships change, we will never be completely independent of face-to-face contact. After all, at the end of the day, when the phone goes straight to voicemail and your inbox is empty, all you can do is power down the computer and have a little face time (That is, if the “end of the day” ever arrives…).

TIFFs? They’re so 1991.

admin — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:55:20 +0000

In an industry that prides itself on cutting-edge technology, why are so many people still using a file type that is archaic? Adobe owns the rights to the TIFF image file format and has not updated its specifications since 1991. That same year, the Internet was first opened for commercial use, the World Wide Web was introduced to the public and Linux was released. Clearly, technology has come a long way since 1991. So why, then, are firms still reviewing and producing in TIFF? When PDFs are Web optimized/linearized, there isn’t a version of TIFF that can load faster over the Web, no matter if it’s single or multi page. The advantages to PDF over TIFF go on and on. PDFs themselves can also be text-searchable, unlike TIFF files, which have separate text files associated with them. Thanks to Adobe’s PostScript control language, PDFs print exactly as they’re viewable online. TIFF’s bitmap makeup makes for poor, pixilated images when printed. PDFs are also operating-system independent and can be loaded and viewed on any computer. PDFs are more innovative, efficient, and useful than TIFF files. If file types had expiration dates, TIFF would be as rotten as Jeffrey Dahmer (who, by the way, was arrested in 1991).

For more information about the advantages of PDF over TIFF, see the white paper.

20 Questions…or More

admin — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:52:59 +0000

“Is anyone on the call yet?” I wondered as I clutched the awkwardly large office phone to my ear, listening for sounds of life on the other end. For the next hour, I would be training new clients how to use Liquid Lit Manager™. The system was easy to use. I knew everything there was to know but with anything there are always the initial nerves. Suddenly, the all too familiar “blip” of someone joining the conference call echoed through the receiver on the phone. As I greeted the clients, all nervousness dissipated. I love talking to people. I’m confident in my ability to train. What had I been so worried about? Over the next hour, the training session flowed smoothly. I welcomed the clients’ questions with open ears, but hardly ever getting questions. I loved explaining all that our system could do and before I knew it, the training session was coming to a close. I found myself double and triple checking for more questions, eager to help as many people as possible, not wanting the call to end.

As I initially went through each “section” of the program I asked if anyone had any questions and each time I got “nope” and “we’re good.” I always wonder if my training is that good or if people are just hesitant to ask questions in a group that they think might be “simple,” “dumb,” or “too basic.”

For the record, there are no dumb questions–ever. And yes, you will understand the system and be able to use it. I always enjoy the working with clients one on one after the initial training when they are actually using the system because I feel they are more open to asking questions and I can have a real impact on their understanding.

Next time we meet in a training session, ask your question…odds are you aren’t the only one with the same question.