All posts tagged international ediscovery

Dutch Data Discovery

The Netherlands is one of the most economically developed countries in the world. Despite being a small country in comparison to others in the EU, the Netherlands is a significant player in the banking and energy sectors and is home to some of the largest corporations in the world. The Netherlands is our next stop, as KrolLDiscovery explores ediscovery in countries around the world.

How is ediscovery unique in the Netherlands?

The Netherlands has no formal requirement for disclosure of electronic documents in legal proceedings (and thus the word “ediscovery” is not regularly used in Dutch legal circles), though international law firms use ediscovery technology in cross-border litigation. For the most part, regulatory matters are the biggest driver for Dutch law firms and corporations when it comes to using ediscovery technology.

The Dutch economy is dominated by companies operating in sectors which are frequently the subject of regulatory investigations such as energy, banking and electronic good manufacturers. Domestically, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has become very active and has been carrying out an increasing number of dawn raids on businesses, particularly those in the energy, automotive and telecommunications sectors. As an international business center, Dutch subsidiaries of foreign companies or Dutch multinational firms are also vulnerable to scrutiny from international regulators such as the European Commission or foreign authorities such as the U.S. Department of Justice.

This period of increased regulatory activity has caused something of a paradigm shift within Dutch companies when it comes to compliance. In the past it was more common for a reactive approach to be taken whereby companies only used ediscovery technology when under investigation. Now we are finding that companies in the Netherlands are prioritizing internal compliance and dedicating more resources and budget towards implementing schedules of compliance audits.

What data protection and privacy laws affect legal proceedings in the Netherlands?

The Dutch Personal Data Protection Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens [Wbp]) was updated in January 2016. The changes include the ability to impose substantially higher fines for a broader range of violations. The update also introduces various data breach obligations, including the obligation for companies to notify the data protection authorities and affected individuals of any data breach.

Aside from the Wbp, there are other national laws that may affect ediscovery such as the Dutch Telecommunication Act (Telecommunicatiewet, implementing Directive 2002/58/EC on the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector). Dutch law firms, corporations and ediscovery providers need to be familiar with both these laws and ready themselves for the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation which will replace the Wbp.

Finally, many Dutch lawyers have concerns about the impact of Brexit and how it might affect transferring data between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. At the moment, the United Kingdom is one of the Netherlands’ biggest trading partners and so regulatory and litigation cases often involve both Dutch and British companies. Depending on what happens when the United Kingdom and European Union negotiate data protection agreements, Dutch firms may begin choosing ediscovery providers who can offer local data centers or mobile ediscovery solutions to avoid the risk of breaching laws that restrict cross-border data transfers.

What are some examples of best practices for conducting ediscovery in the Netherlands?

  • Consider using a forensics expert for data collection in the Netherlands rather than in-house IT teams.
  • Understand the changes in data protection legislation and be ready for the General Data Protection Regulation.
  • Employ predictive coding technology to manage big data, particularly for competition investigations.
  • Be proactive and prepared for potential dawn raids. The Dutch competition authority is branching out from banking and casting a wider net in its investigations.

How can KrolLDiscovery help?

KrolLDiscovery is your international ediscovery resource, no matter your location on the around world. Read more about predictive coding in Australia and Ireland, ediscovery cooperation in Canada, fighting fraud in France, data protection in the UK, Japan and China, ediscovery practices in Belgium and Germany, and anti-corruption laws in Brazil.

Hot Topics in Ediscovery

As you get ready to head back to the office this fall, make sure you’re up to speed on some of the most significant developments in ediscovery from this summer.

New Data Protection and Transfer Laws in Japan and China

Earlier this summer, Japan and China enacted significant changes to their data protection and transfer laws. In Japan, the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) went into full effect on May 30, 2017 and companies are expected to make immediate changes. China’s controversial Cybersecurity Law went into full effect in early June 2017 and focuses on network operators managing data in the country.

Antitrust Law and Technical Innovation

Technological advancements throughout the world have transformed policies and institutions that enforce antitrust law. Check out parts one and two of our video series focusing on how policy and technology changes create implications in the many fields of antitrust law.

Civil Procedure Rules in State Court

Following the release of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), states have taken different approaches to updating their own rules. Some states have adopted the new FRCP, other states are currently considering changes and a handful of states march to the beat of their own drum. Learn more about your state and states that may be important to you in the future.

Fighting Fraud in France

Fraud, corruption and bribery hit close to home for legal and IT professionals around the globe. In France, game-changing legislation has taken effect to strengthen anti-corruption efforts. Sapin II, as the legislation is called, is modelled on the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the U.K. Bribery Act. U.S. businesses with global operations should be prepared with renewed understanding of France’s regulations.

Whether you have a matter that requires collection of electronically stored information (ESI) in a country with strict data protection rules or have questions about state rules of civil procedure, you can keep up to date on everything ediscovery with weekly updates from The Ediscovery Blog.

Fighting Fraud in France: How Sapin II and Ediscovery Technology Can Help

James Farnell, KrolLDiscovery, Legaltech News

Editor’s note: this article originally appeared in Legaltech News.

Fraud, corruption, bribery. Across the globe, these challenges hit close to home for legal and IT professionals regularly called on to collect, analyze and produce data in support of an active investigation or compliance audit.

In France, game-changing legislation is taking effect to strengthen anti-corruption efforts and U.S. businesses with global operations need to be prepared. The provisions of new anti-corruption legislation, Sapin II, have just come into force in France (as of May 2017). Sapin II, adopted on November 8, 2016, is modeled on the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the UK Bribery Act.

Sapin II: The Key to Closing Loopholes in France

In 2005, Sapin II was first proposed and named after Michel Sapin, a French politician and France’s Finance and Economic Minister. Like many countries, France has attempted to combat fraud through multiple anti-corruption laws. However, these laws had several loopholes. The main aim of Sapin II was to strengthen existing anti-corruption legislation by implementing provisions that would close existing loopholes in France’s anti-corruption laws.

Sapin II is a comprehensive anti-corruption framework, some parts of which are more important than others. Below are a few key provisions of Sapin II, along with brief explanations.

1. France’s Expanded Jurisdictional Reach: Prior to Sapin II, French prosecutors had limited jurisdiction in bribery cases. Sapin II removed these restrictions and gave criminal prosecutors the opportunity to charge more offenders in bribery cases.

2. Creation of the French AntiCorruption Agency (AFA): Sapin II created a new administrative agency known as the AFA. The AFA has replaced the Central Service for the Prevention of Corruption (SCPC). It is monitored by a presidential appointee and a sanction commission. The AFA has four major responsibilities:

  • Prevent and detect corruption in the private and public sector;
  • Help companies implement compliance programs that are required;
  • Report violations of the law to prosecutors; and
  • Oversee the monitorships of corporations.

The AFA sends informative reports to the Justice and Budget Ministries to work together to keep up with fraud and anti-corruption strategies.

3. Compliance Program Requirement: Under Sapin II, a company must have a compliance program in place when there are more than 500 employees and the company has a gross revenue exceeding 100 million euros. This is applicable to both French subsidiaries and non-French companies who fulfill the above criteria. There are eight criteria that must be met in order for a compliance program to be deemed to be sufficient by the AFA. The most important criteria are that there must be corporate risk mechanisms and disciplinary procedures in place. Failure by a company to have a compliance program could lead to directors and managers being sanctioned by the AFA.

4. Whistleblower Protection Provision: Sapin II protects those who with good faith report against those who have violated any of France’s laws, international treaties where France is a party, or have threatened the public interest. In order for the whistleblower to receive protection he or she must notify a supervisor directly or indirectly. If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable amount of time then external parties may be notified and if three months have gone by and it is still not resolved, the public may be notified about the violation. Retaliation against a whistleblower can lead to both criminal and civil punishment.

5. French Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA): Sapin II’s DPA is modeled on the U.S. DPA. French corporations are forced to argue facts that have been listed by the DPA. Whether a corporation is punished depends on the judgment from a court through a public hearing. If found guilty, a fine of 30 percent of the company’s average revenue for the past three years must be paid to the French Treasury.

6. New Criminal Offenses and Bribery: It is now a crime for any company or individual to offer a donation, gift or reward to sway a public officer to abuse their discretion with public authority or government. This new criminal offense combines both French criminal law and anti-corruption efforts to stop and prevent fraud.

Sapin II and Ediscovery Technology

As legal and technology professionals in law firms and corporations begin to work under the new provisions of Sapin II, it will be increasingly important to turn to technology solutions to audit compliance programs and investigate fraud. Of particular interest within Sapin II, is the requirement that companies implement a procedure for assessing the effectiveness of a particular compliance program. The review of corporate electronic communication is one way of ensuring that organizations are complying with anti-corruption laws and ediscovery technology can be a critical piece of a thorough compliance audit. For example, the data analytics features in many leading ediscovery review platforms can help detect hidden or emerging compliance risks under anti-corruption laws.

In addition to assisting with a compliance review, legal professionals have increasingly leveraged ediscovery technology to facilitate the investigation and analysis of specific fraud matters. For example, in sensitive investigations, companies can rely on computer forensic experts to collect data and make use of mobile ediscovery technology which allows data to be processed, hosted and reviewed at the company’s premises, if need be. Data need not leave the premises while a sensitive investigation is underway. Most importantly, in France or anywhere around the globe, companies need to seek guidance from local experts to assist in the navigation of local data protection laws and with the collection, processing and analysis of electronic evidence in investigations and litigation.

Whether fighting fraud in France, investigating money laundering in Brazil or collecting data from a Chinese subsidiary in a U.S.-based litigation, organizations all over the world can manage a wide range of business and legal challenges using ediscovery technology.

Spring Digest: Everything You Need to Know (so far!) in 2017

Ediscovery has been busy this year. We’re only five months in and we’ve already seen developments in predictive coding, proportionality standards and ediscovery practices around the world.

Before you head off on your summer vacation, take a minute to refresh yourself on some of the hottest topics in ediscovery so far this year.

Proportionality is Key

One of the most significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure back in 2015 was a new requirement for discovery to be “proportional to the needs of the case.” Today, counsel must ensure that their discovery requests are specific and add value to their case in relation to the accompanying expense.

Australia Gets in the Predictive Coding Game

First the United States, then Ireland and England, and now Australia. Predictive coding (also known as TAR) continues to spread around the world as courts encourage parties to consider technology to discover and inspect documents.

Using Cellebrite in Mobile Phone Investigations

You need not be a computer wizard to appreciate the volumes of relevant data housed on the mobile device in your hand. The standards and technology for extracting mobile device data are still progressing, variable and slightly confusing. KrolLDiscovery’s Jason Bergerson answers common questions around specific technology and processes in mobile phone investigations.

Ediscovery Around the World

Throughout this year, KrolLDiscovery will be diving deep into ediscovery practices around the world. We hope you’ll join us as we explore data collection, privacy, proportionality and production practices in the Americas, EMEA and APAC. So far, we’ve stopped in Australia, Ireland, Canada, the U.K. and Germany to discuss some ediscovery trends in each locale.

Be sure to sign up for updates from The Ediscovery Blog to stay on top of everything ediscovery.

The Luck of the Irish…and Predictive Coding

On this St. Patrick’s Day, it’s opportune to revisit a prominent Irish judicial opinion – in fact, the first known judicial opinion in Europe to endorse predictive coding.

In the spring of 2015, Ireland embraced predictive coding in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v. Quinn [2015] IEHC 175, a case holding that, in the discovery of large data sets, technology assisted review (TAR) using predictive coding is at least as accurate as, and probably more accurate than, the manual or linear method of identifying relevant documents.

The judgment is a great read for predictive coding pundits and a shining endorsement of the potential benefits of this technology. Specifically, the court held that:

  • The rules of court in Ireland do not require a manual document review to be carried out;
  • The evidence establishes that in discovery of large data sets, TAR using predictive coding is at least as accurate as, and probably more accurate than, the manual or linear method in identifying relevant documents;
  • As TAR combines man and machine, the process must contain appropriate checks and balances which render each stage capable of independent verification. The parties need to agree to these;
  • Provided the process has sufficient transparency, TAR using predictive coding discharges a party’s discovery obligations;
  • Predictive coding will save time and money if used to refine a data set and to limit the pool of documents to be manually reviewed. It was projected that 10% of the 680,809 documents would need to be manually reviewed after employing predictive coding, as compared to the traditional linear review estimate that required a team of 10 experienced reviewers, a nine month time frame and a cost of two million Euros; and
  • Parties should first agree to the use of predictive coding, run agreed upon keyword searches to initially refine the data set and then use predictive coding subject to agreed-upon checks and balances. Documents suggested by the software as being potentially relevant should then be reviewed manually by a human review team.

The ruling addressed major concerns expressed about predictive coding and sought to sway the skeptics. It unequivocally stated that predictive coding will save time and money. Although there is no specific reference to proportionality in Irish law, the judgment stated that cost should not be a barrier on access to justice.

The Irish opinion relied significantly on Judge Peck’s Da Silva Moore opinion, setting the predictive coding tone in the United States in 2012. A year after Ireland’s Quinn opinion, the U.K. would celebrate its first judicial opinion referencing predictive coding when the English High Court issued Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd. [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch). In that case, Master Matthews estimated that predictive coding would offer significant cost savings and that the possible disclosure of over two million documents done via traditional manual review would be disproportionate and “unreasonable.” Late in 2016, Australia joined the list of countries tackling predictive coding issues when Justice Vickery from the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria issued a key opinion in McConnell Dowell Constructors v. Santam.

As we continue through 2017, what country will be next to focus on predictive coding? Don’t miss any development; subscribe to KrolLDiscovery’s weekly email updates.

Canada: A Close-knit Ediscovery Community, Continuously Embracing New Technology

In 2017, KrolLDiscovery will be diving deep into ediscovery practices around the world. Tour with us as we explore data collection, privacy, proportionality and production practices in the Americas, EMEA and APAC.

A couple weeks ago, we travelled to the Land Down Under to learn about predictive coding practices in Australia. Our next stop: Canada, where we find that Canada is leading the way on cooperative ediscovery.

What role does ediscovery technology play in Canadian litigation matters?

Ediscovery practices in Canada closely align to analogous processes, principles and goals in the United States and the United Kingdom. For example, Canadian parties and their counsel are seeking to collect, process, review and produce electronic documents as quickly and efficiently as possible. To achieve that goal, many law firms have implemented in-house ediscovery technologies to be able to support their clients’ litigation needs. Some firms and corporations, on the other hand, also take advantage of the close-knit ediscovery community in Canada and choose to work with an ediscovery provider in a managed services capacity. Akin to the United States, many law firms are continuously re-evaluating current technologies and looking for new solutions as the cloud opens new avenues for conducting ediscovery faster and possibly cheaper without sacrificing security.

What is unique about ediscovery in Canada?

In Canada there is not a large body of ediscovery case law like in the United States or even the United Kingdom. In fact, a prominent judicial opinion referencing predictive coding or Technology Assisted Review has yet to be handed down. Instead, legal teams rely on practices and guidelines such as those found in The Sedona Canada Principles or Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure 29.1.03. Furthermore, the Ontario Ediscovery Implementation Committee (EIC) released a series of model documents to help guide litigants through the ediscovery process, including a Discovery Agreement, Preservation Agreement, Checklist for Preparing a Discovery Plan and a Proportionality Chart.

Specifically, when talking with Canadian ediscovery gurus, there is a general sense that Canada leads the global ediscovery community in terms of cooperation and proportionality, with many practitioners stating that developing ediscovery parameters with opposing counsel or regulators is simply more collaborative when compared to ediscovery matters in other jurisdictions.

What are some obstacles to ediscovery in Canada?

In some aspects of legal technology, the Canadian legal system is still playing catch-up, especially when it comes to the technically complex areas of ediscovery, trial presentation or technology in the courtroom. For example, there are factions of early-adopters embracing predictive coding in document review. However, despite the well-established benefits, the majority of legal teams are reluctant to leverage artificial intelligence to categorize documents.

Over the next few years, document review workflows will modernize as additional Canadian legal teams become more experienced with new technology such as predictive coding. This will be increasingly important in the antitrust practice area, where regulators are starting to adopt broader policies similar to U.S. antitrust protocols. The need for predictive coding will increase if parties in antitrust matters need to sift through additional volumes of documents.

How often do Canadian legal teams transfer data to the United States or Europe for ediscovery?

Canadian legal teams are continuously evaluating the needs of the specific matter and comparing risks and benefits of conducting ediscovery in Canada versus elsewhere. Many corporations in Canada have U.S. offices; so often, Canadian litigation has a U.S.-based component and ediscovery documents easily cross borders. However, sometimes legal teams are reluctant to transfer data to the United States for ediscovery processing, hosting and review because of the potential impact on other pending cases or the importance of privacy in the matter. Legal teams in Canada understand that ediscovery is available in the global marketplace and should the availability of technology, ability to deliver under tight time frames or need for a large pool of document reviewers demand resources outside of Canada, parties will consider transferring subsets of data to the United States or Europe.

How does language impact ediscovery in Canada?

Many cases contain documents in both English and French; accordingly, legal teams often require document review teams comprised of bilingual Canadian lawyers fluent in English and French. This sometimes drives up the costs associated with review, placing more importance on advanced search and analytics technologies that increase document review speeds and effectiveness.

Looking to stay up to speed on global ediscovery practices? Don’t miss this whitepaper, “A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery.”

Australia Gets in the Predictive Coding Game

G’day, mate!

As we have said before, predictive coding (also known as Technology Assisted Review or TAR) is taking the globe by storm. First the United States, then Ireland and England, and now Australia. Ediscovery practitioners take heed: significant predictive coding developments are afoot in Australia.

(Special Note: If you are looking to stay informed on ediscovery around the world, don’t miss this whitepaper, “A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery.”)

Predictive Coding: From New York City to the Australian Outback

Late last year, Australia joined the list of countries tackling predictive coding issues when Justice Vickery from the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria issued a key opinion in McConnell Dowell Constructors v. Santam.

In this case, the parties faced massive costs to review 1,400,000 documents, and they could not agree on a review method. Justice Vickery appointed a Special Referee to deliver a report to the court addressing the appropriate management of discovery in the proceeding. Relying on previous TAR decisions from the U.S. and Europe, as well as the Special Referee’s recommendation to use TAR, the court approved predictive coding as an effective method of document review when “the cost of traditional discovery processes in a case such as this dictates that [such processes] are not appropriate.”

Notably, the McConnell opinion made it clear that the courts, not the parties, would have the final determination in whether predictive coding will be employed in civil proceedings in Victoria state court. Specifically, Justice Vickery held that “the Court may order discovery by technology assisted review, whether or not it is consented to by the parties” in cases where the volume of ESI is substantial and “the costs of research may not be reasonable and proportionate.”

However, McConnell was not Victorian litigators’ first exposure to TAR in the courtroom. Three months before the McConnell decision, the Supreme Court of Victoria released a Standard Operating Procedure (TEC SOP 5 [TAR]) to provide litigants with interim measures for using TAR in construction and engineering cases. On January 30, 2017, the court replaced TEC SOP 5 with Technology in Civil Litigation Practice Note SC Gen 5, opening up TAR for general use in Victoria’s commercial courts.

Consent or No Consent: That is the Predictive Coding Question

While predictive coding is gaining traction as an effective tool to tackle massive document sets, there is no bright line on whether a party can be required to use TAR. Contrary to the holding in McConnell, U.S. courts have not compelled parties to leverage TAR. In 2016, two key opinions, Hyles v. New York City, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100390 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016), and In re Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2016 BL 347130 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016), acknowledged the efficiencies associated with predictive coding, but refused to force a party to leverage the cutting-edge technology. That being said, U.S. attorneys need to be prepared that the days of insisting on manual review may one day soon be bygone. As noted by Judge Peck in Hyles, “[t]here may come a time when . . . it might be unreasonable for a party to refuse to use TAR . . . [but][w]e are not there yet.”

What’s Next for the Land Down Under?

Victoria is not the only state in Australia getting in on the ediscovery action. Courts in New South Wales abide by their state Supreme Court’s 2008 Practice Note No. SC Gen & for Use of Technology encouraging parties to consider technology to discover and inspect documents. While this practice note and other similar guidance in the Australian federal court system do not specifically reference TAR, savvy Australian practitioners know that this will likely change in the near future.

Looking to stay up to speed on global ediscovery practices? Don’t miss this whitepaper, “A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery.”

January 2017 Ediscovery Case Summaries

Failure to Preserve Interactive Website Data Held Insufficient to Impose Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)
FTC v. Directv, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176873 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)

Jury to Decide Issue of Intent for Spoliation
Cahill v. Dart, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 166831 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2016)

Australian Court Takes Predictive Coding Down Under
McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v. Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1),
[2016] VSC 734 (Dec. 2, 2016)

Illinois State Court Leverages Proportionality Standards in FRCP 26(b)(1) to Determine if Forensic Imaging is too Intrusive
Carlson v. Jerousek, 2016 IL App (2d) 151248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2016)

Kansas Court Rejects Proportionality Arguments and Boilerplate Objections
Duffy v. Lawrence Mem. Hosp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176848 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016)

Crossing Borders: Where Discovery and Privacy Collide

international ediscovery

Litigation teams face new challenges when an ediscovery project crosses borders – from multilingual data and unique cultural norms to unfamiliar laws, regulations and data privacy practices. In addition, the international data protection landscape is changing and U.S. businesses with global operations need to be prepared. Companies need to think carefully about the risks of transferring data across borders.

To help practitioners navigate these challenges, Kroll Ontrack synthesized information on more than seventeen countries to create a succinct, new guidebook, A Practical Guide to Cross-Border Ediscovery: Insights for U.S. Lawyers.

This guide includes practical insights into how organizations all over the world are managing a wide range of business challenges using ediscovery technology, including:

  • Case studies on cross-border litigation and FCPA investigations;
  • An “At a Glance” visual map that shows the legal system, applicable rules and ediscovery practices for key countries in the Americas, EMEA and APAC regions;
  • Short summaries from experts on the ediscovery landscape in key countries; and
  • A timeline of EU Data Privacy and Protection milestones.

Litigation, compliance demands and investigations are part of the regular course of business for U.S. lawyers. With global considerations and cross-border implications, law firms and companies now rely on mobile ediscovery technologies, in-country data centers and local expertise to empower the processing and transferring of data in a compliant and cost-effective manner. This guide is just one way that Kroll Ontrack is here to help attorneys and their counsel thrive and adapt in a changing ediscovery world. Read the new cross-border guide today.

Ediscovery in China: Traditions, Rules and Customs You Need to Know

Ediscovery in China

On June 22, Kroll Ontrack managing director and APAC ediscovery expert Kate Chan will discuss the Chinese ediscovery landscape, so you will be prepared when you need to know the traditions, rules and customs when faced with a regulatory investigation or cross-border litigation.

Ediscovery in China: Traditions, Rules and Customs You Don’t Know

The Chinese legal landscape is often seen as daunting and secretive; a laborious task for an American legal professional to master. Specifically, Chinese data protection and privacy laws in particular provide a challenge to any international ediscovery project. Because of the substantial economic growth resulting in higher volumes of data in China, as well as the expanding complexities of ediscovery law, a practitioner that is not familiar with Chinese law can find themselves at a significant disadvantage, especially when faced with a regulatory investigation or cross-border litigation.

To help you meet these unique challenges head on, we’ve enlisted seasoned APAC ediscovery expert Kate Chan to offer the information and strategies you need to manage Chinese ediscovery.

Specifically, this webinar will cover:

  • The implication of China’s regulatory framework on ediscovery
  • Recent developments in Chinese ediscovery practices
  • Tips for managing the unique issues related to managing ESI in China
  • Ways Chinese ediscovery differs from ediscovery practices in other APAC countries

Click here to get more information about this webinar and to register.

Kate Chan is a New York attorney who started practicing on Wall Street. She is a native of Hong Kong and is fluent in both Mandarin and Cantonese. She is the Regional Managing Director of Kroll Ontrack’s Legal Technologies unit in Asia Pacific.

 
css.php