Video Conferencing: The Closest Thing to Being There

Video Conferencing: The Closest Thing to Being There

Videoconferencing allows the attorney to expand his or her reach.

by Eric Goldberg, Benchmark Reporting Agency

No one can deny that technology has revolutionized the way we do business. When the first video conference was introduced at the 1964 New York World’s Fair, it was a futuristic dream that few could imagine becoming a part of every day life. Today, businesses cannot imagine staying competitive without it.

Video conferencing gives law firms, attorneys, their clients and associates the opportunity to participate in real time, face-to-face meetings without the time or expense involved in travel. The quality, availability and high definition of video conferencing make it quick and easy for colleagues to communicate and share data without making a trip to the airport.

Just think of the time and expense you’ll save in travel––hours that can be spent, and billed, more productively. Your clients will also appreciate the ability to meet with you expediently. When video is added to a meeting, participants’ facial expressions of concern or satisfaction can be seen and addressed immediately, without the frustration of crossed emails or missed phone calls.

Not only is video conferencing convenient and sensible, it makes a compelling visual impact while cutting costs as you manage an ever-growing caseload. You’ll complete more meetings in a day, resulting in effective decisions and focused projects, thereby increasing productivity and profitability.

As a Principal of Benchmark Reporting Agency, Eric Goldberg oversees and is active in the day-to-day sales and marketing for the company. He also coordinates all of Benchmark’s video conferencing and video streaming worldwide — nearly 5,000 deposition suite options. He has been with Benchmark since 2000 and knows the court reporters, the firm’s capabilities, and the most efficient way to serve clients’ needs. 

Kenny Zais, President of O’Brien & Levine Court Reporting, Featured in Two Important Online Articles

Kenny Zais, President of O’Brien & Levine Court Reporting, Featured in Two Important Online Articles

O’Brien and Levine is a leader in electronic legal services.

Kenny Zais, the president of O’Brien & Levine Court Reporting in Boston, MA, is being featured online in two blogs. Read Kenny Zais’ thoughts about how legal professionals are working with electronic exhibits here and read how O’Brien & Levine is leading the way with electronic depositions here.

Protecting Privacy Within E-Discovery Deadlines

Protecting Privacy Within E-Discovery Deadlines

Most discovery is handled electronically.

By Karen Whalen

A complete and competent review of the clients’ electronic documents for confidential materials may be impossible to accomplish within the strict discovery deadlines, making privacy difficult to protect. Electronic discovery is the only form of discovery today – clients no longer retain folders of documents in a filing cabinet. They only maintain an electronic file. Yet, the deadlines for document production remain the same as when paper discovery was the norm.

Clients may hand their attorneys a hard drive (or multiple hard drives) of electronic record that include voluminous .pst files of all emails on the subject matter or project – including emails to and from their personal attorneys, corporate attorneys or even the attorneys who were provided with the hard drives to respond to discovery. Paralegals are the ones who are tasked with the job of culling from the clients’ electronic files the attorney-client communications and other privileged documents prior to the production of the records. How does the paralegal review electronic documents within the time constraints allowed by discovery – especially emails covering a long time period that can number in the tens of thousands, not counting attachments?

Software Programs Are Not the Sole Review Tool

There are many litigation software programs that manage electronic documents; however, no matter what method is used. An eyes-on document review is involved somewhere in the process. Sophisticated programs include “predictive coding,” which locate documents similar to those which have been designated as privileged. There are tools to highlight certain key words, such as “litigation” and “claim,” plus attorney names, law firm names, and email addresses of counsel. However, clients forget to give you all the names of their personal attorneys, law firm email addresses may not have the word “law” in them, and even attorney signature blocks in emails may not identify the sender as legal counsel – so those types of communications are not easily identified and not captured by key term searches.

Another type of document not uncovered by a key word search is the non-relevant email, such as an invitation to a company picnic or a private social event. Worse yet (and unfortunately I have encountered this on more than one occasion) is the need to eliminate pornographic materials from client documents. Calendar invites to the company baseball game are innocuous, but off-color jokes and private photographs when included in a document production are an embarrassment and a terrible infringement of the client’s privacy. The client may be guilty of including such materials within the electronic files (most likely the emails are long forgotten by the client), but the client is relying on his attorney to protect his privacy. (I am using the masculine pronoun to include both genders, since this is not a gender-based phenomenon.)

In addition, even if the paralegal is using complex software, documents still need to be reviewed for content, since some privileges are not obvious to recognize and must be determined by a document reviewer. Therefore, regardless of the review platform, it is best practice to review the clients’ electronic documents one-by-one (called linear review) rather than relying on predictive coding or key word searches alone. The key word search is ideal for locating relevant client documents on the client’s servers and classifying critical documents within collections produced by other parties, plus it is an excellent aid for identifying privilege terms, but it should not be used as the only tool for a privilege review.

Privilege Review May Not Be Completed By Deadline

Tedious and time consuming, linear review involves scrolling through email chains of duplicate emails, examining email addresses to identify lawyers, and analyzing content in order to make complex decisions as to what is privileged and the basis for the privilege. Clients may forward emails from their attorneys to third parties, which waives the attorney-client communication privilege. This usually happens pre-litigation, before the representing attorney becomes involved and has the opportunity to advise the client not to forward emails containing legal advice. The privilege “in anticipation of litigation” requires legal analysis. In-house corporate attorneys wear several hats and it can be difficult to tell which communication is actually privileged. Often only a portion of the email is privileged. Keeping redactions consistent and tracking the basis for the privilege for inclusion in a privilege log can be laborious.

All of this e-discovery is expected to be completed within a fairly quick time period. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(1)(C) states that the deadline for initial disclosures is within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, which is supposed to take place as soon as practicable or at least 21 days before a scheduling conference. Therefore, the initial disclosures deadline is somewhat dependent on when the judge sets the scheduling conference, although most judges are eager to set those quickly. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A) states that the time to respond to requests for production of documents is 30 days after being served with the requests.

No matter how the deadline is calculated, there are occasions when it is impossible to perform a linear review within the deadline. Either the documents are produced without a page-by-page review, which is obviously not ideal, or extensions of time are agreed upon.

Rolling Productions by Agreement

Large productions are better managed if parties can agree to produce documents when reviews of subsets are completed, rather than by the discovery deadline. The email directory of the company president can be produced in an initial production, the email directory of the project manager in a supplemental, and so on. After all, it takes time to analyze the records that are produced by other parties. One can only ingest a voluminous production in sections, anyway. The disadvantage of rolling productions is that they can take several months to come to an end. There have been times when documents are still being produced as depositions are taking place – even of expert witnesses. Rolling production agreements often contain the caveat that if key documents are produced after critical depositions have taken place, deponents may be re-deposed to provide further testimony as to the documents from a later production. But, there are instances when document productions are compelled outside of the scope of litigation, when accommodations for rolling productions may not be an option.

Response Time for Subpoenas Can be Ridiculously Quick

Federal subpoenas are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), which states that a subpoena may be quashed or modified if it fails to allow a reasonable time in which to comply. However, the rule is vague as to the actual time that is required to be given for compliance, except to state that objections must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or within 14 days after the subpoena is served. Local federal rules may clarify this rule or impose different time restrictions or further clarify Rule 45. For example, a subpoena for a deposition must be served 14 days in advance of the appearance date per District of Colorado, Local Civil Rule 30.1. In any event, the deadline is not long enough for a voluminous electronic document production and allows no room for procrastination.

Attorneys may receive a phone call from a client, not a party to a lawsuit, who was served a month previously with a records subpoena to produce documents the next day, because the client delayed until the deadline was imminent before calling his attorney. An extension of time is sought, but the party requesting documents does not usually agree to several months of extra time, which is realistically the time production could take. In a worst case scenario, the client may not call his attorney before producing a hard drive of the electronic files pursuant to a records subpoena prior to the client being brought into the suit in an amended complaint or a third-party action. The client may not even mention that documents were produced pre-suit, and the lawyer is left to discover copies of his client’s records, including privileged documents, in production sets from other parties. Clients who do not think about contacting their attorneys before producing electronic files may not review their files for attorney-client communications before production.

I recently supervised a production set of our client’s documents that had already been produced by another attorney who represented the client before our firm entered an appearance. The documents were voluminous, in native format, included .pst files, and were not Bates-numbered. I sent the documents to a vendor for conversion to a universal format (.tif) and Bates-number branding, then re-produced the documents to all parties. They contained attorney-client communications. I did not review them before re-producing them. I knew better than that: even though the documents were already produced, privileged documents should not have passed through my hands and out the door. But, there you have it. It happens to all of us, and I’ve done this more times than I want to admit.

Clawback Is Inevitable

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure anticipate the need for “clawback” – a vivid word used to describe the withdrawal of privileged documents from production. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)((5)(B).) There are also many ethics opinions at the state level to cover situations in which clawback is necessary. However, if parties can agree in advance to a clawback procedure, it can prevent adversarial positions and motion work concerning disputes. Protective orders, scheduling orders and case management orders are the likely instruments to memorialize clawback agreements.

Software programs are invaluable tools, but should not be used as the sole process for reviewing documents for privilege, in spite of difficult-to-meet deadlines during electronic discovery. Examination of electronic documents page-by-page may seem too time consuming and lack the excitement of a page-turner novel, but it goes a lot further to insure the protection of the client’s privacy and to prevent the production of privileged documents.

Karen Whalen, ACP, RP, is a paralegal with more than 20 years of experience at Hall & Evans, L.L.C., in Denver, Colorado.  Ms. Whalen earned her B.S. degree from Northern Illinois University and her post-graduate paralegal certificate from Roosevelt University. She earned the ACP (Advanced Certified Paralegal in the Litigation Specialty) and PACE (Paralegal Advanced Competency Exam) registered paralegal credentials.  Ms. Whalen has previously presented CLE accredited seminars on ethics, legal writing, medical records evaluation, and trial preparation for the Institution for Paralegal Education, Half Moon, LLC, and the Colorado Bar Association.  Ms. Whalen has written articles for Facts & Findings and authors a regular column on “Technology” for The National Paralegal Reporter.


Your Facebook Password or Your Job?

Your Facebook Password or Your Job

Should your Facebook and other social media platforms be made accessible to employers?

By Eric Matusewitch, PHR, CAAP

Imagine you’re interviewing for a paralegal position. Your resume is polished. Your answers are crisp. The questioner seems impressed. Before the meeting is over, though, you’re asked to hand over your Face book username and password.

Sounds implausible, but it could happen. Recent reports of employers requesting that applicants turn over their social media passwords have grabbed headlines in Forbes, Fox News, CNN, and on many other media outlets and blogs. While this relatively new practice may aid employers in screening job applicants, it may also lead to legal challenges under various federal and state statutes.

No Law Prevents Asking for Passwords

No federal law prevents an employer from asking for an employee’s password to his or her social media websites. Legislation, though, has been introduced in Congress to address the issue. In March 2012, the House of Representatives rejected an amendment to the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012 (H.R. 3309) that would permit the Federal Communications Commission to enact rules prohibiting telecommuting companies from requiring job seekers to disclose passwords for social networking sites. One month later, the House also rejected an amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act (H.R. 2353), which similarly bars employers from demanding Face book and other social media passwords from applicants and employees.

Most recently, in February 2013, Representative Elliot Engel (D-NY) reintroduced stand-alone legislation – the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA, H.R. 537). SNOPA would make it unlawful for employers and institutions of higher education to require or request user names, passwords, or any other means for accessing private email accounts or personal accounts on any social networking website. The bill, which would subject employers to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Privacy of FB Posts

Employers who request applicants’ and employees’ login information may be in violation of the Stored Communication Act (SCA) or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The SCA prohibits intentional access to electronic information without authorization or intentionally exceeding authorization to access electronic information, and CFAA prohibits intentional access to a computer without authorization to obtain information.

In 2013, a New Jersey federal district court held that an employee’s face book wall posts were protected by the SCA. An important factor in the court’s ruling was the fact that the employee had configured her privacy settings to restrict her posts to her Facebook “friends.”

In this case, a paramedic working for a hospital made an alleged inappropriate post on her password protected Facebook account. The post was forwarded by the paramedic’s Facebook friends to management who disciplined the paramedic because of the post. Subsequently, the employee filed a lawsuit claiming the management violated the SCA and the common law invasion of privacy tort.

While the court granted summary judgment in favor of hospital management because management had not solicited the post, it found that “when users make their Facebook wall posts are ‘configured to be private’ for purposes of the SCA. The Court notes that when it comes to privacy protection, the critical inquiry is whether Facebook users took steps to limit access to the information on the Facebook walls.” The decision has been hailed as a huge victory for privacy because it recognizes that employers may not require employers to turn over their digital user names, passwords or password protected digital content.

Furthermore, on March 26, 2012, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission calling on those agencies to investigate whether the practice of asking for Face book passwords during job interviews violates the SCA or the CFAA. In a press statement to accompany the release of those letters, Schumer said: “Employers have no right to ask job applicants for their house keys or to read their diaries – why should they be able to ask them for their Facebook passwords and gain unwarranted access to a trove of private information about what we like, what messages we send to people, or who we are friends with?” (The DOJ had not issued an opinion as of February 2014.)

In addition, requiring the disclosure of social media passwords of job applicants and employees opens the door to potential discrimination charges under federal and state civil rights laws. Job bias statutes such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibit an employer from making employment decisions based on factors like age, race, sex and physical condition—all things which, most likely would be readily revealed by even a quick perusal of a potential employee’s Facebook page. So, for example, if an employer used Facebook to discover that an applicant is being treated for cancer and rejects the job seeker for that reason, the employer would be susceptible to a discrimination claim under the ADA and parallel state and local statutes.

State legislatures have also jumped into this fray. In April 2012, Maryland became the first state to enact legislation prohibiting employers from asking prospective and current employees for access to password-protected material on their personal social media accounts. Since then 12 other states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington) have passed similar statutes. These laws generally prohibit employers from requesting or requiring job applicants or employees to:

  • Share their social media account names and passwords with the employers;
  • Log into their social media account(s) in the employer’s presence so that the employer can view the account (“shoulder surfing”); and
  • Befriend them on social media to gain access to their respective profiles.

These state laws also prohibit employers from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against job applicants or employees who refuse to comply with the employer’s request for access to an individual’s social media account. These statutes, however, carve out exceptions allowing employers to request an employee’s social media password when an employer is conducting an investigation into allegations of employee misconduct or illegal activity.

The enforcement procedures and penalties for violations of these statutes vary among the states. For example, Michigan, Utah and Washinton expressly provide a private right of action in the event of violation, although the other states are silent on this point. The penalty in Michigan is limited to $1,000 per occurrence, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Utah caps awards at $500 per violation.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of February 6, 2014 similar bills had been introduced or were pending in at least 25 other states (including Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio).

Finally, employers who request or require that applicants and employees hand over their social media passwords must sidestep another minefield; social media websites’ terms of service. For example, section 4.8 of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities states “you will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account.” In a March 23, 2012 post on its website, Face book’s Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan warned employers that Face book will “take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers, or where appropriate, by initiating legal action.”

Given the rapid legal developments in this area, employers should be extremely cautions about requesting or requiring an applicant’s or employee’s social media password(s). Many individuals currently live, or will soon live, in, “protected password” states. In addition, employers must be concerned that this practice may discourage otherwise qualified individuals from applying for job vacancies. Finally, asking employees or job applicants for their login information could generate negative media attention.

Eric Matusewitch, PHR, CAAP, is a member of the Montgomery County, Maryland Committee on Hate Violence (Office of Human Rights) and former deputy director of the New York City Equal Employment Practices Commission. He also taught courses on employment discrimination law for New York University and the Long Island University Paralegal Studies Program. Eric has written the Manager’s Handbook on Employment Discrimination Law (Andrews Publications, 2000). He was a member of the Advisory Boards of the Berkeley College Paralegal Studies Program and the New York City Paralegal Association. He holds Masters’ Degrees in Political Science and Library Science, and a Certificate in Paralegal Studies. He is certified as a Professional in Human Resources by the Society for Human Resource Management, and as an Affirmative Action Professional by the American Association for Affirmative Action. He may be reached at

Six Lessons Learned from Court Reporters: Thoughts on Growing up in the Industry

Six Lessons Learned On Court Reporting:

The court reporting industry offers lessons after a seeing it from the inside.

A reflection on skills transferable to any career path that your child chooses.

At NCRA conferences, I have often had the conversation with other children of court reporters that we need to form a support group. The millennial generation grew up with reporting parents who experienced a rapidly changing legal environment, where the demands and stresses were palpable, unprecedented, and impossible not to have some lasting effect on us. Kidding aside, the truth is that looking back there was much to be gained by having court reporters for parents.

1) Nose to the grindstone

Is writing 250-300 words a minute to a realtime feed difficult? Definitely. But while some think the court reporter’s job is complete after the deposition or trial is finished, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Reporters work very long hours editing transcripts, poring over exhibits, proofreading, and then proofreading again. For every one hour of writing live, 1-3 additional hours are actually dedicated to the final product. The lesson learned for me is not being afraid to go over and above. If you are in the service industry, (and 4 out of 5 Americans are) your clients will appreciate the effort and dedication.

2) Time management

Oftentimes, these transcripts are rush turnaround. A job can turn into a rush without warning and without regard to whether it’s a weekend or weeknight, which segues into the importance of time management. I often say that my parents can get more accomplished in one day than many get done in several work days. They must be efficient with their free time.

Simply put, this is not a 9-5 job. In today’s working world, with the emergence of smart phones and 24/7 access, other industries are just starting to getting used to the mobile worker. However, reporters have been juggling this ball for decades. Yes, it is difficult to make commitments in your social life from time to time. But it has taught me to appreciate the “now” and to truly be present when not working. It has also encouraged me to devote time to being off the grid for an improved work/life balance.

3) Technology’s Rapid Pace

Fear of “the new” is not a luxury available to reporters. My parents often tell the story of how their first computers cost more than their first home in the ‘80s. Court reporters, in an effort to stay current and to continue to provide innovative services, constantly feel the pressure to be technologically savvy.

I have never heard my parents express fear about trying out a new product. If it helps court reporting to remain a viable career, they try it. I was exposed to technology constantly as a kid and loved helping out at the office, feeling a part of the family business. For me, having access to the latest and greatest computer programs allowed for creative tinkering with trial presentation software, editing photos, and converting videos much earlier than my peers. Likewise, their emphasis on the importance of continuing education has encouraged me to never stop learning.

4) Roles redefined

I have vivid memories of my mom in the ‘90s lugging her steno machine and that funny shaped paper into the house while wearing shoulder pads and power suits, coming home after a day of reporting and administering her all-women firm.

Court reporting has become a great vehicle for women to claim independence and own their own businesses. Once a male dominated career, today women have emerged as leaders in the field. Because of this shift, it has also been beneficial to witness the important and unique perspective my father brings to the table in a continually evolving, diverse workforce.

Finally, back to number 2 on the list, the need for constant flexibility also challenged traditional roles in the household. If one parent was called in to cover a trial and the Judge extended the day’s proceedings, the other parent cooked dinner or picked up the slack for chores. It was a daily juggling act but one that taught me not to be constrained by society’s stance on whose duties at home belonged to whom.

5) Relationship building and supporting colleagues

The professional relationships my parents have formed with both their clients and colleagues have inspired me to keep track of my connections. I’ve never heard them say a disparaging thing to our clients about their competitors. Competition makes you better, forces you to grow, and allows for companionship with others who can relate to what you’re going through. The network of reporters we have joined has become a vital asset to aiding in our advancement, and in turn we can reciprocate our knowledge and lessons learned.

Witnessing the way reporters give back to the profession, encourage students, and support fellow reporters has shown me that nurturing your profession can secure its success for future generations.

6) If walls could talk

Court reporters are privy to the intricacies of lawsuits and conversations held both on and off the record. “Keeping the record” is not a responsibility they take lightly. Carefully sealing exhibits, protecting a witness’s identity, refusing to comment on case details to the public or news, these are all attributes of an officer of the court who takes their job seriously.

In short, if you are into gossip and enjoy TMZ, this is probably not the job for you. The role of a reporter is to write while remaining impartial, to deliver a specific work product, and archive it properly. Attorneys appreciate your not sharing their case info with others as well.

This translates to any career where the stakes are high and it is important to hold your cards close. Discretion is something all professionals need to exercise, whether it’s a new product or shifting management.

In conclusion, if you’re on the fence about it, reconsider. If you are worried about the impact it will have on your kids, reconsider. For the reasons mentioned above, reconsider a career in court reporting. Your kids will thank you someday.

Katie Coulter
Trial technician and part owner (Power Presentations, LLC)

Daughter of Coulter Reporting, LLC owners (Rick and Ellen Coulter)

New Appellate Decision on Deposition Time Limits May Benefit Defendants in Asbestos Litigation

by Sally Hosn

New Appellate Decision on Deposition Time Limits May Benefit Defendants in Asbestos Litigation

Asbestos has been linked to a number of serious problems in people who have been exposed to the material.

On January 8, 2014, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion holding that the deposition time limits for certain cases may be extended past the seven-hour rule set by the California Code of Civil Procedure. Under Code of Civil Procedure1] section 2025.290, the deposition of a witness by opposing counsel must be limited to a total of seven hours of examination, except under certain circumstances, such as complex and preference cases. (§ 2025.290, subd. (a).)When a case is designated as complex, and a physician has signed a declaration that the deponent is unlikely to survive longer than six months, the deposition time limit may be extended to a total of 14 hours of examination. (§ 2025.290, subd. (b).) However, according to the recent California Court of Appeal ruling, the Court has discretion to allow depositions to extend any time limits imposed by section 2025.290.

In Certainteed Corporation v. The Superior of Los Angeles County (Jan, 8, 2014, B253308) __Cal.App.4th ___, the Court of Appeal responded to a trial court’s request to issue an opinion regarding the trial court’s authority to allow additional deposition time in asbestos cases, reiterating its earlier stance that such extra time is permitted on a case-by-case basis. In issuing its opinion, the appellate court analyzed the deposition time limits statutorily imposed by section 2025.290. In particular, the Court focused on the section of 2025.290 which states that “the Court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent.” (§ 2025.290, subd. (a).)

Traditionally, this has been read as only applying to the seven-hour time limit. However, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals the word “section” implies that the Court’s ability to extend deposition time limits applied equally to the seven-hour and 14-hour deposition time limits. The Court of Appeal held that “both the seven-hour limit and the 14-hour limit are presumptive only and are plainly subject to the discretionary authority of the trial court to allow additional deposition time.” (Certainteed v. The Superior of Los Angeles County, __Cal.App.4th__[p 4].)

This latest decision indicates that deposition time limits in asbestos cases have become much more flexible. This ruling from the Court of Appeal should greatly benefit asbestos defendants. Generally, asbestos cases involve many defendants and plaintiffs that are often both elderly and ill. Such factors severely limit a defendant’s ability to effectively depose plaintiffs within the time limits previously required under section 2025.290. However, going forward, upon a showing that such factors affect the ability to fairly examine a deponent, the Court may in its discretion, allow a deposition to extend beyond the time limitation previously imposed by section 2025.290.

Sally Hosn is an associate in the toxic torts department of Poole & Shaffery, LLP. Ms. Hosn’s practice primarily focuses on defending entities against toxic torts and chemical exposure claims.

Peterson Reporting Adds New Technology

Peterson Reporting Adding New Technology

Peterson Reporting is adding new tools to enhance the deposition process.

Peterson Reporting is excited to introduce our clients to eDepoze for increased efficiency and cost-savings during deposition. eDepoze integrates directly with Relativity, the most popular document review database on the market right now. eDepoze allows for the introduction of official exhibits electronically during the course of a deposition. It eliminates the cost of printing/copying, preparing and shipping of potential exhibits.

Firms can take advantage of the direct link with Relativity Binders to import the electronic version of potential exhibits with a click of a button, saving time and money spent preparing paper documents prior to the deposition. Firms have immediate access to download the official exhibit once the deposition is complete, also saving time and money. Lastly, eDepoze eliminates the need to lug huge boxes of potential paper exhibits to your depositions.

The secured online platform is accessible on desktop computers, laptops, iPads and Android tablets. The witness and attending attorneys can review the exhibits for free during deposition. Attending attorneys can also purchase the electronically marked exhibits to leave the deposition with an electronic copy of the official exhibits.