December 14, 2011
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery welcomes you to a complimentary webinar, "Collection, Review, and Production of Your Client’s Electronic Information," presented by Shane Delsman. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12:00 noon EST.
The e-discovery stage of collecting, reviewing, and producing your client’s electronically stored information (ESI) can be shaped by many factors, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Although e-discovery can and often does involve massive amounts of information, the proper use of e-discovery tools can minimize the time and expense associated with collecting, reviewing, and producing such information.
This webinar will review and discuss the following topics and more:
- Collecting ESI for further use in the e-discovery process
- Processing collected ESI, including reducing the volume and converting formats to facilitate review
- Reviewing ESI for relevance and privilege
- Producing ESI for others in appropriate forms and storage media
- How the Federal Rules affect the above procedures
- Some example methodologies for collecting, processing, and producing ESI
The program will conclude with an interactive Q&A session.
Our speaker is Fitch Even attorney Shane Delsman. Shane has a wide-ranging intellectual property law practice that includes IP litigation, opinion counseling, and patent prosecution, with significant experience in e-discovery matters. He has previously presented and moderated presentations on e-discovery for Fitch Even and the IP Committee of the Chicago Bar Association. E-discovery generally takes place after a litigation hold has been put in place to preserve electronic evidence.
- Leveraging Separate IPR Counsel to Maximize Litigation SuccessFitch Even Webinar: November 18, 2021 Read more
IP Alert | USPTO Abused Discretion by Allowing Further Abuse by Ex Parte ReexaminationOctober 22, 2021
On September 29, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the interplay between petitions for IPR and a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination. Read more