National Network of Reporting Companies (NNRC) announces Partnership with inData Corporation

NNRC members will offer state-of-the-art litigation and trial consulting services through a strategic partnership and alliance with inData Corporation.

National Network of Reporting Companies (NNRC) announces Partnership with inData CorporationFolsom, CA– {November 20, 2014} – The National Network of Reporting Companies, founded in 1983, and now the largest and oldest network of independently owned national court reporting firms serving as the global source for court reporting, legal video and video conferencing services, today announced a new partnership agreement with inData Corporation based in Gilbert, Arizona, to provide litigation and trial consulting services.

As a result of this partnership, NNRC members will expand their services by utilizing inData’s trial services division to provide experienced trial consulting and related litigation services, explained Chuck Cady, president of NNRC.

“This strategic alliance with inData will enable our independent members to enhance their services by offering full-service litigation support from discovery through trial to litigators nationwide,” said Cady. “This partnership will enable NNRC member firms to establish litigation support divisions that will help time-strapped trial teams expertly produce demonstrative graphics, prepare trial presentations, and choreograph courtroom and war room set-up or simply run presentations during trial.”

The NNRC boasts a network of independent court reporting partners with more than 55 of the most customer-oriented, technologically advanced court reporting firms in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Its members must be recommended and go through an in-depth vetting process before becoming a part of this prestigious network, strategically located in the United States and around the world.

Following inData Corporation’s release of its market-leading trial presentation software, TrialDirector®, the company established a professional services team that has worked side-by-side with litigators in hundreds of trials across the globe and developed a recognized expertise in the legal community for consulting in trials in a variety of industries according to Jordan Ray, inData Vice-President and Trial Services Division Director. “We are delighted to announce this highly-anticipated partnership with the NNRC,” said Ray. “The independent NNRC members provide state-of-the-art technology in court reporting with an unparalleled reputation for ethical and responsive customer service. This alliance provides the industry with seasoned professionals who will seamlessly provide a one-stop shop in all aspects of litigation for litigators seeking the most experienced, technologically advanced litigation services to expedite and win more cases for their clients.”

Further information, please contact Debbe Dreher, executive director of NNRC, at 916-932.2202

About the NNRC

NNRC is the most prestigious and largest litigation support network, handling more than 10 million depositions since 1983. Through personal recommendations, NNRC partners have been assessed as the most technologically advanced and dependable court reporting companies in the USA and worldwide. These independent court reporting firms offer global video depositions, conferencing services, as well as litigation support services. Learn more at NNRC.com.

About inData Corporation

Founded in 1984, inData is a technology company specializing in the management and presentation of information. It is a privately held company, headquartered in Gilbert, Arizona. inData develops innovative software and uses seasoned trial experts to provide software training, trial consulting and graphic services to legal professionals dealing with the challenges of litigation. Software products include the best-selling trial presentation software, TrialDirector®, in addition to TimelineXpress®, TimeCoder™ Pro, DepoView®, DepoView® DVD, and TDNotebook®.

.For further information, visit the inData website: http://www.indatacorp.com or contact Judy Miller, inData National Account Executive and NNRC Liaison

Austin Court Reporting Firms

Austin Court Reporting Firms

Austin, TX

Austin court reporters are ready to provide today’s attorneys with all of the technology they need to work more effectively. Today’s lawyers are facing new challenges in their casework, and having the right tools can be an important element that allows legal professionals to serve their clients more effectively.

Over the past few years, connectivity has played an increasingly important role in many fields. In the legal profession, it can help lawyers take advantage of their most precious commodity: time. Realtime reporting and videoconferencing can be important tools that help lawyers alleviate travel burdens or immediately access the information they need when they work.

There are also other tools like online repositories and indexing that can be an integral part of legal work every day.

When attorneys travel to the area, they can count on Texas court reporting firms to help provide all of the technology that allows legal professionals to accomplish their objectives and return to their clients. Additionally, they can enjoy the best conference facilities that allow them to work in comfort.

Today’s lawyers need every tool to serve their clients and maximize their talents. The right court reporting company can be important to help lawyers get the most out of their work every day.

Atlanta Court Reporting Firms

Atlanta Court Reporting Firms

Atlanta, GA

Atlanta court reporters are the source for the very latest in technology and experience that today’s law firms need as they take on more complex cases. There are many new tools that have emerged in the past few years that have given lawyers new ways to approach their cases and work more effectively and efficiently.

New tools like realtime reporting, videoconferencing, indexing, and online repositories have allowed lawyers to save time through each phase of their casework. They can help lawyers take command of information in new ways and work with greater ease in an era where there is often a much larger volume of documents and other information in cases.

Lawyers who travel to the area can also take advantage of the skill of these top court reporters. Georgia court reporting firms offer all of the tools that are important to today’s lawyers in addition to the amenities that help visiting attorneys work more effectively. They can accomplish their objectives and stay in touch with their legal teams, making the most of their limited time in the area.

Having the right team in place is important in any profession. The right court reporters can be an important part of your law firms effort to serve clients better.

No Court Reporter? Really?

No Court Reporter Really

NNRC can provide reporting support when your legal work takes you anywhere.

by Tom Richardson, President, Stewart Richardson Deposition Services

Litigation is time consuming, complicated, and filled with deadlines. The last thing you need to worry about when taking a deposition is the court reporter. You’ve prepped for your deposition, kissed your spouse goodbye, and jumped on a plane to another city. You’ve arrived at the deposition location, pulled everything you need out of your briefcase, grabbed your fourth cup of coffee, and are ready to engage.

You look around the room and start to wonder, “Where’s the reporter? Did my staff forget to schedule someone to cover the job? The expert witness is charging me by the hour, and my client isn’t going to be happy about paying them to sit there idly.” Probably never happened to you, but it does happen. That’s why the National Network of Reporting Companies (NNRC ) is so valuable.

One short call to your local NNRC member firm, and the wheels begin to turn. Need a location? No problem.   What about a hotel recommendation? Done. Restaurant choices? Here’s the list. But most importantly, the NNRC delivers. Every time.

NNRC members are reliable and exceptionally capable. Unique circumstances are our specialty. Count on us to come through when you need us most. We won’t leave you stranded. Call 866-337-6672 for more information. Or visit nnrc.com to discover the difference NNRC members provide.

With over three decades of experience, Tom Richardson is noted as Indiana’s leading expert in court reporting innovation, service and technology. Under his leadership, Stewart Richardson has grown to be Indiana’s premier deposition firm, with a corporate commitment to integrity and exceeding client needs. Contact Indianapolis court reporters at Stewart Richardson for more information about how they can enhance your legal work

 

Working with Today’s Top New York Court Reporters

When people seek the very latest in technical tools to enhance their casework, they turn to New York City court reporters. They can provide all of the innovative ideas and the very latest in connectivity and other tools to help lawyers work more effectively through each phase of their cases.

Working with Today’s Top New York Court Reporters

In New York, partnerships with top court reporting firms are crucial.

When lawyers work on many of today’s complex cases, they need to be able to maximize their time. New York state court reporters can help lawyers better utilize their talents through tools like videoconferencing, realtime reporting, indexing, and online repositories.

When lawyers visit the area, they need solid support for their work. These companies can provide conference rooms and all of the professional services that lawyers come to expect when they must work on the road. Lawyers can stay in touch with their legal teams at their practices while they accomplish their objectives so that they can return to their practices and their cases.

Over the years, these court reporters have developed a reputation as the providers of accurate and timely transcripts and other materials. Now, they have evolved to partner with law firms throughout their case work, from investigation and case preparation all the way through presentation in the courtroom.

Summit Court Reporting Indispensable in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

Summit Court Reporting Indispensable in Pennsylvania and New Jersey

Summit Court Reporting is an important asset for today’s law firms.

More and more lawyers are taking on cases that present new challenges. These lawyers are working to enhance the way they work by partnering with top Philadelphia court reporters, and Summit Court Reporting is the leader in providing the services necessary for today’s legal work.

Summit provides all of the important services that today’s attorneys need throughout all phases of their casework. Indexing, online repositories, and courtroom presentation can all help lawyers make an impact in different ways.

For attorneys who need to expand their reach and eliminate the time and expense of travel, New Jersey court reporting firms can also provide videoconferencing that can be applied to many arras of legal work. Attorneys can consult with co-counsel or even depose a witness over a secure connection.

Summit has worked over the years to meet the changing needs of attorneys in an evolving legal field. The firm has worked to bring new and innovative technologies to legal work that allow the lawyer to better utilize their time and talents.

Summit Reporting also provides all of the accurate transcription and other services that are crucial to legal work every day. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, these professionals are the leaders in helping lawyers serve their clients more effectively.

Having Family Build Your Conference Room Furniture

Having Family Build Your Conference Room Furniture

New conference room furniture at Carol Nygard & Associates Deposition Reporters

Operating a deposition reporting firm requires a great deal of infrastructure in order to create the best possible experience for clients. While the most important part of what we do involves creating an easily accessible and accurate transcript of proceedings, client comfort and aesthetics are also very important to us.

We recently opened a new office in Walnut Creek, California and decided that we would like custom-built conference tables to match the sea and scuba diving décor throughout the office. After finding out that custom conference room tables like the ones we wanted would cost tens of thousands of dollars each, we found another solution: an employee who also happens to be family.

We enlisted the assistance of John Nygard, who happens to be both handy and creative. Exploiting family labor in projects like these is a real money-saver if you are lucky enough to have a family member willing and able to take on this type of project. A table that would normally cost tens of thousands of dollars can instead be created for the cost of supplies and the long list of future favors you may owe the family member doing the labor.

Of course, there are potential hazards to having a non-professional creating your conference tables. The first frame for our first table was too large to fit in the elevator or up the stairs of our office building. Then while waiting to try to break it down in the parking lot to be moved upstairs, a woman ran over it with her car and ruined it. A different table with a concrete top required additional painting and polishing the night before our big opening. John stayed up until 6 am to have it ready in time for our first deposition in that room. What happened after that? The deposition cancelled.

In the end, building our own custom conference room tables allowed us to create the office we wanted. Our clients love the tables and ask about how we did it. You too can do it if you have an idea and a handy relative who also happens to be an employee. Now our biggest worry is that he’s going to start moonlighting as a builder of custom conference room tables.

Scott Nygard
Carol Nygard & Associates Deposition Reporters
www.sacramentocourtreporter.com

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.