|
Until very
recently attorneys have not needed Computer Forensics
and Electronic Evidence Discovery (e-discovery) experts.
However, the introduction of new procedures such as Rule
26, Rule 34, and Rule 45 for handling electronic
evidence and requesting electronic information present
many difficulties especially for smaller law firms with
limited financial resources. The use of Computer
Forensics and e-discovery experts is now becoming an
essential part of a winning strategy. With careful
preparation and the use of affordable computer forensic
examiners from a law firm can use the new rules to
greatly enhance the quality of discovery obtained from
the opposite side. |
|
experts can help you: |
 |
|
 |
Narrow
the scope of the search and to consult with the opposing
lawyer to address what discovery should be easily
accessible and in what format the discovery should be
produced. |
|
|
Address electronically stored information early in the
discovery process. Such early attention is crucial in
order to control the scope and expense of electronic
discovery, and avoid discovery disputes. |
|
|
Meet e-Discovery demands. |
|
|
Gain
the winning edge by providing you organized access to
proper and correct electronic evidence discovery &
collection, extensive analysis & documentation of
crucial evidence obtained from electronic media. |
|
|
Avoid
the possibility of cost shifting
that the new rules
allow, forcing the plaintiff to pay the defendant for
the requested discovery if the defendant establishes
that the discovery is not reasonably accessible.
|
|
|
Protect your case from a defendant who may intentionally
swamp the plaintiff with unnecessary discovery to
increase the costs and deplete the plaintiff firm’s
financial and personnel resources. |
|
|
Sort
out issues arising from the “two-tiered approach.” Under
the two-tiered approach, the first tier is challenging
an opponent’s designation of electronically stored
information as not reasonably accessible.
The
second tier comes into play if the court agrees that the
defendant’s electronically stored information is not
reasonably accessible. Once this occurs, the requesting
party must show “good cause” for the discovery and the
plaintiff lawyer will have to show that the discovery
falls within the scope of discovery and is sought in
good faith. Once that determination is made, then the
court may order the defendant to produce the documents,
but may require the plaintiff to pay for the costs of
producing the documents. Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) the
court may shift the costs of the discovery to the
requesting party “of part or all of the reasonable costs
of obtaining information.” |
|
|
Reduce your
potential costs and the time you spend reviewing
information that may be totally irrelevant to your case.
Limit electronic discovery to what you really want. |
|
|
Sort
out the
new rule changes and the complexity of electronic
discovery and the various methods of storage and
extraction. |
|
|
Carry out
proper and legally acceptable
forensic examinations
on
Hard
Drives, Cell Phones, Digital Cameras, PDA’s, CD's, DVDs,
Flash Cards, or Tapes |
|
|
Axiana
LLC - partners with Kroll Ontrack to provide electronic
discovery, paper discovery, and computer forensic
solutions for complex litigation and regulatory matters.
With nearly 20 years of experience, Kroll Ontrack is the
leading provider of services and software to help law
firms, financial institutions, corporations, and
government agencies restore, produce, manage, and review
information for legal matters.
|
|
The key to success is to not be afraid of modern
technology.
With our help you can embrace it, learn it, and win with
it.
If you are
in the metropolitan area of NY, NJ & CT we can travel to
you
|
2
