E-Discovery Innovation: Cutting Costs With Relevancy Quick Peek Agreements
Strategies for Negotiating First Look Agreements in Litigation
Recording of a 90-minute CLE teleconference with Q&A
Conducted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Recorded event now available
Description
The exponential growth of information subject to discovery and the escalating costs of e-discovery are staggering. Counsel must find new and creative ways to minimize cost while not placing confidential information in jeopardy.
Relevancy quick peek agreements are a unique opportunity to reduce unnecessary expense and review. Also called first look agreements, they allow plaintiffs to review an agreed upon set of defendant data prior to production and designate what they want produced.
Rather than reviewing Gigabytes to Terabytes of irrelevant information to identify the relevant subset, defendants can review the identified documents, produce those they agree are relevant, and negotiate or move to exclude those determined irrelevant.
The new Federal Rule of Evidence 502 supports this approach, providing additional protections should inadvertent waiver of privilege occur during the relevancy quick peek review period.
Listen as our authoritative panel of litigation attorneys examines what the Federal Rules say on relevancy quick peek agreements, the implications of search terms and technology, security considerations, and best practices for drafting and using first look agreements to contain costs.
Outline
- Federal Rules on quick peek agreements
- Implications of search terms and technology
- Security considerations
- Best practices for drafting and using quick peek agreements
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- How do the Federal Rules address quick peek agreements?
- What are the risks associated with the agreements?
- How have courts treated the agreements?
- What provisions should be included in the agreements?
Faculty
Julie Anne Halter,
Partner
K&L Gates, Seattle
Her practice includes general business litigation and managing large, document–intensive cases, specifically those involving electronic discovery. Her experience directing discovery teams in document–intensive litigation has allowed her to develop and expand skills in managing large document cases especially those involving electronic discovery.
Wendy Butler Curtis,
Special Counsel E-Discovery
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Washington, D.C.
Her practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on litigation management and e-discovery. She coordinates complex discovery involving multiple parties and large amounts of information. Her experience in e-discovery, litigation readiness, and records management includes creating and implementing preservation, e-discovery, and records management policies, procedures, and training.
Rand P. Nolen,
Fleming & Associates, Houston
He practices in the areas of personal injury, products liability, commercial litigation and medical malpractice, litigating matters in both state and federal courts. He has headed up the firm's Fen-Phen diet drug litigation, SUV rollover litigation, and Rezulin diabetes drug litigation.
Ordering
Recorded Event
Includes full event recording plus handouts (available after live seminar).
CLE: Pre-approved for self-study credit in AK, AZ, CA, CT*, MO, MT, NY*, TX, VT, WA. Upon request, self-study credit is also available in: CO, FL, GA, ID, KY, LA, ME, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, UT, WI, WV, WY. If you are applying for self-study credit in one of these states, contact Strafford CLE at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35 or CLE@straffordpub.com. (*For CT and NY, Strafford needs to process the CLE — see below to purchase this option.)
MP3 Download (Audio Only) $247.00
Available 24 hours after the live event
CD $247.00
plus $9.45 S&H
Available ten business days after the live event
CLE on CD Processing $65.00
CLE Credit
Strafford's live seminars qualify for CLE in every state that accredits webinars. They offer you a high quality, cost effective, and convenient CLE option, with no lost travel time or expenses.
Customer Reviews
Content was superb.
Patrick Webb
Webb & Carey
The program provided good legal references, good bullet points and good scope.
Tim Thomas
Kolesar & Leatham
All of the speakers were very informative, and being able to ask questions was very helpful.
Larry V. Smith
Jackson Walker
The three presentations created a balanced approach.
Cris Navarro
Enloe Medical Center
Good handouts and up to date references.
Andrew Davis
Lieben Whitted Houghton Slowiaczek & Cavanagh
Litigation Advisory Board
Partner
K&L Gates
Counsel
O’Melveny & Myers
Partner
Baker & Hostetler
Partner
Mayer Brown
Partner
Winston & Strawn
Partner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Of Counsel
Morgan Lewis & Bockius