Sadly this is another case of people/organizations having an unclear
understanding of what a "Standard" is.

There is the potential to develop a set of guidelines or a recommended
practice, but the possibility of a TRUE "Standard" in this area seems highly
unlikely.  there are severely different opinions on what each side
expects/desires in an eDiscovery case.  

To develop a Standard, there are four cardinal principles that must be met
by the body performing the work:  Balance, Openness, Due Process and
Consensus. It5 hard to believe that individuals could come together
representing both sides of this issue along with parties from the Court to
offer their objective opinion and reach consensus.  Even groups such as
Sedona would not qualify to meet the ANSI/ISO Requirements.

At some point, "Guidelines" or "Recommended Practices" may be developed to
state what minimums should be met by parties involved in eDiscovery to
satisfy the needs of both parties involved and to ensure the Court doesn't
have to repeatedly rule on what needs to be performed, but not a "Standard".  

Every case is different- some involve Intellectual Property, Confidential,
Classified, Privacy, Medical, Financial Employment and other sensitive or
business proprietary information and in these cases, exceptions are
regularly granted to parties involved- how would any of these be addressed
in a Standard?

Larry
[log in to unmask] 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]