Originally published September 4, 2014
The term "e-discovery" is still considered a dirty
word in some circles. Imagine that, we can use technology to check
in on Facebook or send a Tweet from a smart phone in just about any
corner of the globe, but when it comes time to litigate issues that
invoke the dreaded "e word," litigants and even judges
become bewildered, shuttering at the thought of garnering the
necessary evidence to successfully prosecute or defend against a
claim through the use of 21st century technology. It
doesn't have to be that way.
Most of the resistance to incorporating digital evidence into a
case revolves around cost, and there is no avoiding the fact that
e-discovery comes at a price. One need not look any further than
the 2013 District of New Jersey decision by United States
Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer in Juster Acquisition Co. v.
North Hudson Sewerage Authority, 12-cv-3427, to realize both
that e-discovery is a critical component of
