|
|
Archive for February, 2010
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Contrary to rumors that have been appearing in the last couple of days, Mimosa Systems/Iron Mountain will not be sun-setting any features, capabilities or products. In reality we will be increasing investment in NearPoint solution development and applications, and are adding features and functionality.
For many years now Mimosa Systems has been known in the market for its innovative next-generation solutions for email, file and SharePoint archiving, which are years ahead of the Symantec Enterprise Vault solution.
Tags: Email Archiving, Enterprise Vault, iron mountain, migration, mimosa, NearPoint, ROI, symantec Posted in Bill Tolson, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Tags: e-discovery, e-mail, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, Email, ESI, EU, France, FRCP, French, privacy, private Posted in Bill Tolson, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, February 22nd, 2010
http://www.mimosasystems.com/html/news-pr-mimosa-systems-acquired-by-iron-mountain-02-22-10.htm
Iron Mountain Adds All-in-One, On-Premises Archive to Complement its Cloud Offerings; Company Now Capable of Managing Information Wherever it Resides
BOSTON (Feb. 22, 2010) – Iron Mountain Incorporated (NYSE: IRM), an information management services company, today announced it has acquired Santa Clara, Calif.-based Mimosa Systems, Inc., a leader in enterprise-class content archiving solutions, for approximately $112 million in cash, subject to closing adjustments. The deal provides Iron Mountain with an integrated archive for email, SharePoint data and files, and gives the company an on-premises archiving option to complement its existing cloud-based archives.
Tags: information management Posted in Martin Tuip | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 19th, 2010
In Melendres v. Arpaio, CV-07-2513-PHX (D. Ariz. February 11, 2010) (UNPUBLISHED), U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow granted plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and ruled that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) failed to issue a timely litigation hold resulting in the destruction of relevant documents, including e-mails.
In discovery, plaintiffs learned the MCSO shredded relevant documents (i.e., stat sheets) and deleted e-mails. In addition, not a single deponent was aware of their obligation to preserve evidence.
Tags: adverse inference, backup tape, court, e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, Email, ESI, litigation hold, plaintiffjudge, responsive ESI Posted in Bill Tolson, Disaster Recovery | 1 Comment »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
As expected the archiving functionality in Exchange 2010 created quite a bit of a buzz with people and most have been wondering how in reality the archiving functionality stacks up against traditional archiving products like Mimosa NearPoint. Microsoft positions Exchange 2010 archiving at the moment as a Personal Archive and suggests customers who have a strict need for compliance to look at business archiving solutions under which they classify Mimosa NearPoint which offers besides email archiving, advanced eDiscovery, File System Archiving and SharePoint Archiving.
Tags: eDiscovery, Exchange, Exchange 2010, mimosa, NearPoint Posted in Email Archiving, Exchange 2010 Archiving, Martin Tuip | 2 Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 11th, 2010
An excellent description of the new Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General which took effect on Jan 1, 2010 can be found here.
Tags: Canada, e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, Ontario, Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure Posted in Bill Tolson, Canada, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
In a recent case; Accessdata Corp. v. ALSTE Tech. GMBH, 2010 WL 3184777 (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2010), the Plaintiff, an American company, sought to compel defendant’s production of documents, including information related to customer complaints and defendant’s technical support of non-customers. Defendant objected to the interrogatories and requests for production on the grounds that they were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking irrelevant information and because “disclosure of information relating to third parties’ identities would violate German law.”
Tags: Defendant, e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, Email, ESI, GDPA, german, German Data Protection Act, law, plaintiff Posted in Bill Tolson, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 5th, 2010
There has been an ongoing argument as to the validity of concept search verses keyword search in discovery searches. The main arguments I have seen are:
- Keyword searches tend to miss relevant documents and are under-inclusive in their search results.
- Concept searches tend to produce too many non-responsive documents and are considered over-inclusive in their search results.
Tags: : Concept search, conceptual search, e-discovery, eDiscovery, electronic discovery, ESI, FRCP, keyword search, legaltech Posted in Bill Tolson, eDiscovery | No Comments »
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|