Digital Discovery Planning Meeting Discussion Log

Nickname - Message
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:55) The meeting will begin in just a few minutes.
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:55) Are your video feeds working OK?
<AnitaHotchkiss> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:55) yes, sound a bit muffled
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:57) greetings from the west coast of Canada
<bentahriri> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:57) Hello
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:00) Hello to everyone and welcome to the Digital Discovery Planning Meeting
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:00) If you have any tech questions, double click on Ben Edelman's name and he will help you.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:00) Welcome Bob. Please introduce yourself.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:01) Welcome Vince, Joseph, and Lawrence
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:02) Thank you!
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:02) We hope to make this chat space both a dynamic and a warm one. Please tell us a bit about yourselves as you sign in. We are looking forward to working and learning together.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:02) {BTW -- this chat client *IS* running successfully, even through our company's firewall)
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:02) How can we change the annoying color of the "...has joined" message?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:02) Good to know the firewall's don't impede progress. :)
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:03) Anon: We can't change it right now, but as soon as we can, we will be happy to.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:03) <-- Deputy General Counsel for Schlumberger -- in charge of IT and Training; 1979 law school grad
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:03) 7greetings I am a legal researcher working primarily in the area of law and info technology.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:03) Looks like we have an interesting community growing here.
<JonathanZittrain> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) The program hasn't started yet, right? I'm getting lots of voices at once through my realplayer!
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) Thank you, Talia. It's the little things ...
<BobStier> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) I try patent and products liability cases from this wonderful base in Portland, Maine. I am also the technology partner at my firm. This is the first time I've participated in this kind of conference.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) A note to all: if you're responding to someone specific, write their name in front of your comment.
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) The meeting is now beginning.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) (just saw Charlie Nesson walk by the camera)
<MichaelMatis> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) Greetings - I am an instructional technology librarian in Albany, NY.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:04) We are beginning now!
<AlfredCortese> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:05) Our sound is not working - how do we get it to work?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:05) Alfred: double click on Ben's name at the right and ask him -- he'll help.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:05) Welcome barry.
<AnitaHotchkiss> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:05) I'm having trouble hearing as well. Any ideas?
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:06) The speaker doesn't have a mike.
<barrybauman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:06) thanks....i can only see the chat, not the live feed
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:06) Joseph, thank you. We'll tell Prof. Nesson
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:07) (somebody ask Nesson to stand still -- easier to stream video that way)
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:07) Vince, he's a dynamic fellow. What can we do?
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:08) (I'm getting quite-choppy audio here -- breaks up a lot, especially when the camera is moving)
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:08) Welcome Jay. Please introduce yourself.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:08) For those of you who have just joined, we have only just begun. The panelists are introducing themselves now.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:09) Welcome Jonathon, Avniye and Nancy. Please introduce yourselves to the digital discovery planning group now forming.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:09) Hi. I am from Istanbul, Turkey!
<JayBregman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:10) I'm Jay Bregman, a Dartmouth Undergraduate currently at Keble College Oxford. I worked for BCIS this winter.t
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:10) I am a a communicaiton consultant and lawyer...
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:10) 7With these peoples background on average of 10 years I feel like a newbi with 2 years background
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:10) Jonathan Eisenberg, Senior Legal Counsel of Medtronic, Inc., a medical device manufacturer. I manage a variety of litigation for the company, primarily IP litigation.
<JohnCarroll> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:11) Glad to be here. The string between Alabama and Boston broke
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:11) Liam, I empathize. The panelists have great expertise; as do all of you participating. We are expecting to learn from all of you.
<JayBregman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:12) Talia--any idea how to pick up the realstream behind a firewall?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:12) Welcome BFaussett. Please introduce yourself to the community.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:13) Alfred, Nancy -- just making sure your tech is all right.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:13) Jay, take a look at frequently asked questions on the digitaldiscovery webpage.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:13) Welcome Eoghan.
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:13) I haven't introduced myself. I teach Civil Procedure & Internet Law, and have authored a book and several articles on Destruction of Evidence.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:13) Prof. Solum, great to have you aboard!
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:14) Welcome Carlos. Please introduce yourself to the digital discovery planning team.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:14) 7,Lawrence - any comments on the Bluminthal emails
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:14) Welcome anonymous. I won't ask you to introduce yourself.
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:15) Just introducing myself, I am Lenore from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:16) Welcome Lenore. What brings you and Horizon Blue Cross Blue shield?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:16) Hello, I'm an infosec consultant in NYC with a long history of following privacy and legal issues surrounding technology's advance into life in general. I'm hoping to understand the issues with digital discovery and possibly meet some of the people charting paths with similar values as myself. thanks...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:16) Carlos, you've come to the right place. We are all hoping to work with the panelists to understand the issues of digital discovery.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:17) The professor needs to use his mike if he is to be heard.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:17) Talia, how many speakers are there ? The screen is very small here
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:17) I am a litigator and generally interested in the idea of "digital discovery/" Of all professions, I think that law is somewhat behind the times in this area.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:17) Avniye, there are 7 speakers. we'll zoom out so you can get a sense of the whole room.
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) Talia, because of the small size of the online screen, it would be helpful if the camera could zoom in more on the speakers, at least when they are speaking for more than a few moments.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) SInce we seem to be doing intors, I'm a solo practitioner (after too many years as a litigator at Skadden Arps) whose practice focuses on complex litigation
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) Welcome Louis. Please feel free to introduce yourself to the digital discovery planning team.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) Are you the one in blacks behind them? :)
<BobStier> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) These issues are not limited to corporations and their systems. I have a current products liability case in which the plaintiff has used the Internet extensively to seek doctors, complain about his various problems, and publicize his $2 million value for his own case. As counsel for the defendants, we have sought to examine his computer drive, and are continuing to negotiate with his lawyers about the extent of that search.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) question for panalists - do they think there is a big problem with the formats of data do they think the law treats data bases diffrently from other records such as a WP type document.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18) Jonathon, good suggestion. thanks. we are trying to balance between giving you a whole sense of the panel and focusing on the speakers.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:19) Liam, excellent question. this is a good forum for substantive discussion. i'll keep a file of questions, but hold on to yours as well. the panelists will be answering your questions at intervals throughout the panel.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:20) 7thanks Talia
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:20) *IS* there a checklist/nomenclature of electronic data types? Are there emerging standard interrogatory/discovery boilerplates that somehow reflect this plethora of data-types?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:21) 7Vince - check with the records manegment news group they may have such a list
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:21) Vince, it is a question I hope the panelists will address. The few standards there are are only now emerging. We are working together in order to help form them at a high level.
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:21) Something just published on patients communicating with their doctors by e-mail: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/doctor_email0502.html Also patients are using on-line support groups for specific illnesses, etc.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:22) I hate to be a one-note song, but what good it this if we can't hear the lengthy questions of the moderator. He needs to use his mike.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:22) The question of doctors and patients privacy is an interesting one -- what are the parallels to atty-client privilege?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:22) Talia, it might be worth noting that some of the panelists are using the term "backup" when others mean "archive."
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:22) 12 I second JV's comment on use of the mic.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:22) Mark, an excellent thing to point out to them. A nuanced distinction that is important. Do you want to expand on the difference?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:23) I'll let Prof. N know as soon as I can get his attn.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:23) JV, Carlos -- notice Prof N has just moved his mike up. Hope this will help.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:24) Well, my primary interest in doing discovery is to get all relevant material, but reduce redundancy as much as possible. A "Backup" is by definition a copy of active data. An "archive" is a historical record of older data.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:24) Mark, a sig distinction. one is relevant; the other may well not be.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:25) What do ppl think of the role of the judge in this process?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:26) Is not relevance to be determined by a judge not the managers of the records
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:26) Liam, that is one of the critical questions. What do ppl think?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:26) Also, a back-up is usually transitory... many networks rotate back-up tapes weekly.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:27) Welcome Triallaw. We are just beginning the discussion. Judge Patti Saris is now speaking about costs of discovery and how that affects her decisions.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:27) Liam/TaliaThe system will grind to a halt if relevance is not determined in the first instance and in most cases by the parties -- guessing, of course, how the judge would rule.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:28) But relevance is content based, not format based...
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:28) Some judges approach cost-allocation by forcing the costs on the data-collector, reasoning that "they made their bed, now they can sleep in it." But, it this *really* reasonable?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:28) Triallaw, how should relevance be decided? To everyone, what are the critical components?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:28) I am glad to see Judge Saris stated in level of priority relvance first then cost. The truth can be costly.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:29) I saw your question: How is the sound? The panelists are perfect; I cannot hear the moderator.
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:29) Realistically, relevance has to be weighed with the cost of the discovery is a real issue, and who must have the burden of the cost and the value of the case.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:29) Std poinjt on relivance is is it key to the heart of the matter at hand does it advance the argument or legal point
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:29) Liam writes the truth can be costly. A serious statement. What do peole think?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:30) The rules noy say that cost is proportional to amount in dispute.
<anonymous> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:30) I agree with the statement. If you have a case with a total value of $5,000, it is unrealistic to think a Court will order extensive discovery that would cost more than the value of the case.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:30) Relevance is no more or less the key to the matter than in paper-only cases. BUT the balancing can be much different IF the putative respondent can show it's much more burdsome in the electronic case.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:30) If the truth is too expensive, you don't get it.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:31) the truth can be costly => information can be costly : as with the distinction of backup and archive I'd like to see phrases shift from data to information. Information is knowledge. Data is... well raw data are bits.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:31) "Expensive" is something relative I believe...
<BFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:31) When you're dealing with electronic data, isn't any question about the "relevance" of documents irrelevant? The data is the universe of searchable material, relevance could be measured by the queries you run against the data. All data should be searchable, and the limits of "relevance" compared against the queries that the asking party wants to run.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:31) I think Liam has hit on one of the most controversial issues here. Is any price too high for the truth? What types of limits should we set? What does proportionality mean in this context?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:32) If cost is the problem then the solution lies with the info mgmt community to arrive at cost effect means of archiving and retreving e-records -technical solutions are necessary
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:32) good point here on the crypto!!
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:32) Yes, the truth can be costly. And the rules permit a motion for a protective order on the ground on the basis excessive burdens. For example, recovery of all the deleted files from all of the hard disks of all the employees who might have possessed relevant files could be enormously expensive. Proportionality is some sort of relationship between the likely value of the claim and the cost of production.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:33) Liam, a point worth bringing up with Terry Lenzner, John Jessen and Jim M, all ppl working on the info mgmt side.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:33) Proportionality means what it has always meant. I think the real issue is what Kevin Conway said in the beginning: shouldn't digitalization of records mean discovery is now cheaper?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:33) information versus data. ciphertext is data. the cleartext is information.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) Welcome test. Please do introduce yourself. We are discussing questions of cost and scope, two key issues of digital discovery.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) didn't DoJ refuse to turn over to Mitnick encrypted data (to which Mitnick held the key), arguing that DoJ didn't have "possession" of the data (since it couldn't read it)?
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) Mark is exactly right -- it should. But that's an empirical question. Will those with an interest in this area open their records to examine this question.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) --switched -- couldn't read screen
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) Did someone say litigation was about searching for the truth? When did that start? Almost without exception, plaintiffs' search in cases is simply for "bad documents," regardless of the cost, so if they can find a way to unearth another 10,000 or 100,000 documents it's always worth it to them since any one "bad document" will enhance the value of their case. Our task is to inform the courts of the full cost of these endless efforts.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:34) Benjamin Reeve, good to have a real name with the "face."
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:35) Glad you have the face...
<BFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:35) losing sound...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:35) Jonathon, these are controversial issues, but it is important that we maintain respect -- we are all here in this chat to help work these questions out in a healthy way for the system.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:35) Jonathan - I said search for truth - not fishing expidition I know courts will not allow such things
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:36) Well, in fairness, courts have a substially harder time re "fishing expos" w/ digital info
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) Jonathan: A few years ago the push was to have parties produce the "bad" documents up front, but defendants squawked. If you had to pick that system or the current one, which would you choose?
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) I was simply stating the problem and the obligation this places on defense counsel. No disrespect intended.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) Ben, many of the fundamental questions involved in discovery are that much more complcated in digital disc
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) We are agreed
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) Jonathan: It is important to remember that "bad documents" may well have already been identified by the party seeking discovery--tens of thousands of documents are produced as part of an effort to prevent discovery of bad documents.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:37) Jonathen - none taken good point about the obligation on defense
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:39) Taila, can this judge be called techie enough?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:39) The current live discussion raises two issues for me - corp. retentionn policies have now expanded to preserce materials not formerly preserved: should those now be accessible? -- WHat does the requestor have to do to encompass such materials in a request?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:39) Avniye, she is in the trenches on issues of discovery and, like most judges, is only beginning to explore digital questions. Any judges out there with more ideas?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:40) Mark, save that Q. We are about to turn to participant questions.
<JohnCarroll> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:40) One of the biggest problems is the education of judges. We need more education before we can rule intelligently on these issues
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:41) Judge Carroll, one of the long term goals of this planning mtg is the creation of judicial seminars -- potentially in conjunction with the FedJud Center and the Rules Advisory Committee.
<JohnCarroll> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:41) Those would be very helpful
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:42) 7John - very true I find there is still not enough consideration of these matters by the vast majority of lawyers and judges - the key is making them aware enought to notice the issue of e-records
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:42) I suggest that a good way to explore digital questions is to recognize that the federal rules (on which most state rules are based) have provided that computer records are "documents" in the traditional sense. So computer records should be treated the same as prior records. I suggest that, in most instances, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel but simply apply the traditional wisdom to the digital questions. For example, scope issues should not change at all. Burden questio
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:42) Liam, John: How best can we make judges and lawyers more aware?
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) Wrong -- many companies *DO* permit "personal" information on company-owned/supplied systems.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) Welcome to Cuny. We are in the midst of talking about cost/relevance while preserving privacy.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) Judge Carroll, how do you know when you're getting the straight story in educational programs? E.g., the slant of this group is relatively anti-production. Yet the "balance" is often the PI plaintiffs' bar, who can be somewhat jaded by boxcar discovery and real spoliation examples. How do you find the truth?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) 7write articles and publish - I am working on a peice about the changes to the Canadian Fed Evidence Act
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) And what I have been wondering is when the "privacy" concept will be discussed...
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) Good Point, Joseph V.
<JohnCarroll> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) The key is to have education from neutral parties like the Federal Judicial Center
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:43) 7ditto on privacy
<AnitaHotchkiss> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:45) Will there be a transcript of this panel discussion available on the web or otherwise?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:45) ditto the ditto to privacy... the definition of an electronic document, in my opinion, is the same problem as calling your target data. the content or the information is what your after. the form of storage online can be vast.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:46) 7Here is another issue - authenticity of the records - how do you determine if the doc is fiddled with do we as lawyers know enought to ask questions in determoining these points on authenticity
<BobStier> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:46) For purposes of electronic discovery, should we require parties to specify the search that must be run?
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:46) Probably the most important factor in electronic discovery is cost, including the cost of business interruption in locating and translating stored electronic data. How does the panel feel about following Judge Saris' traditional approach to discovery (balancing need and burden) by doing the following: (1) conducting an initial conference about the magnitude of the case and nature of information required to resolve the case; (2) set a maximum dollar value to be spent on discover
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:47) SK : where is your point (2)?
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:48) BobStier: The traditional approach should work here: The requesting party frames the request and the responding party makes judgments about how to respond. It becomes problematic when a requesting party also attempts to control the search process.
<BretFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:48) Document reviews are enormous $ generators for large firms. I'm skeptical that quick electronic searches, or worse, "discovery bots," will replace the ten associate document review teams.
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:49) The spending limit will be set by the court based on the magnitude of the case.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:49) Well, at current associate salaries, as a partner I say bring on the bots.
<BretFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:49) Good point. bots work day and night, they never eat, and they don't earn $140,000 a year. :-)
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:50) Pretty good...
<BretFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:50) But of course, bots don't bill either...
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:50) Gentle folks, law school tuition, and borrowings therefor, has not decreased either...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:51) Am I correct in sensing that spending caps is an issue ppl are intereted in discusing?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:51) I think therre are two types: e-mail now replaces what waas once verbal communications, and therefore transient... THe other is what you said, destroyed, deleted, overwirtten....
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:51) Liam asked a Q earlier that I think is interesting: can info magmt ppl help to make costs cheaper?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:51) Welcome John. Great to have you aboard. Please introduce yourself to the digital discovery group.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:52) Caps even beyond spending as such, domain limitations, citation limitations
<JohnPalfrey> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:52) Hi -- I'm John Palfrey, a 2L student at HLS.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:52) email is one thing what about voice mail.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:52) I think they can in the long run by creating systems that would enable safe harbor rules. I don't think we're there yet, but a well-organized system that allowed prompt production of the 85% or 99% or whatever could ultimately avert the horror stories, IMO.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:53) Sorry, that last was a response to the Liam/Talia q.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:53) Reciprocity Issue -- some have said that fear of the response has kept many from initiating "e-discovery wars".
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:53) traillaw: I'm unfamiliar w/ the term safe harbor rules. please clarify.
<BretFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:53) The disk-space for voice mail is usually capped per user, and I don't believe that voice mail, even saved messages, is archived.
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:54) The (reciprocity) asymetry of discovery burdens is a fundamental fact about the existing system of discovery. This occurrs with paper files, etc. The problem is not asymetry; it is proportionality.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:54) Carlos, take a look at the online library when you have a moment -- article on Eur Union/US safe harbor principles that may be instructive.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:54) voice mail on Lucent PBXs are not saved by default. you may be able to do forensics on the disk if you can get the specs from the vendor.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:54) Lawrence, What would you ask the panelists?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:55) Talia, what do they think about discovery of keystroke tracing records?
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:55) The point about deleted material on hard disks is an important one. How should the legal system respond if corporate IT manages begin to use sophisticated techniques designed to prevent (or make it very expensive to) recover deleted files? Will we have a routine order requiring that use of such programs be discontinued once a lawsuit is filed? Should a party that employees such techniques be required to bear additional costs of recovering the deleted data?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:55) Lawrence, an excellent Q. WHat if the tech turns the tables...
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:55) My question follows the current speaker's point.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:56) And suppose the corp uses outside services...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:56) Benjamin, flesh that point out. What could happen?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:56) No the major issue should not be cost - relevance is the key . The retreval cost problems must be solve by the recmgmt community
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:56) ...it could be a way of making many records go away rapidly
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:57) It is very hard to draw lines around many computer systems so that discovery requests can be "directed" to them...or not.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:57) Any other questions out there before we move on to the next section of the panel? There will be a chance to ask questions again, and of course this is only a beginning of the digital discovery conversation.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:57) along the lines of BR's thought - outsourcing of your IS to a group that handles mutliple organizations would present problems for "unintelligent" searches against systems that hold data for multiple organizations.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) The conversation is gone, but the person could ALWAYS have been deposed about it. We're complaining because we have a more accurate record of the conversation??
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) Privacy concept... The definitions...
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) I mean to refer to overinclusion, as well as underinclusions, as well as big misses...
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) Aha! There's part of my point about materials not formerly preserved...
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) deletion of emial should not be a problem if the corp has a proper retention schedule system
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:58) ... and "where" -- as if it were a "place..."
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:59) Triallaw, MH-- you point out that we are entering a different world of certainty -- no more "i don't remember"
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:59) Liam -- it's not that easy, where the program actually requires individual users to police themselves.
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:59) The "good cause shown" argument that is currently being made really goes to systemic discovery reform and not digital discovery in particular.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:59) Vince- true
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:59) YEah, but arguably it drives up everybody's costs
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:00) Lawrence, where is the nexus between the two?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:00) insufficient nexus
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:00) Mark who ever suggested ecom was going to be cheap was very very wrong
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:00) Exactly, Talia. But it's also true that there's a business cost to responding to idiotic emails that once would have never seen paper. Now, do corp execs have to do covering memos that say "of course, that's not co. policy...."
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:02) On the other hand, we can't create any "discovery-free" zones -- if all e-mail is presumptively exeemopt from discovery (even if rebuttable) then price-fixing will be done by e-mail, sure as shootin'
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:02) Should there be discovery free zones? What would we lose if we moved in that direction?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:02) Mark -- Would you favor "encryption-free" zones?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:03) BR: encryption being used to provide pseudo qualitiy-of-comms for data. interesting.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:04) Encryption, inter alia, is a way of making information "un-informational"
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:04) BEnjamin - I don't get that -- presumably materials encrypted for security reasons should be decryptred for discovery, unless a "trade secret" exception to discovery applies.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:04) ...or somemone "forgets" the passowrd, or doesn't know where to find it...
<BretFausett> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:04) Or, perhaps, the employee with the "key" has left the company.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:04) ...all of the above
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:05) Document retention policies are more dangerous to corporations than helpful. As pointed out, it often appears like hiding than a legitimate policy -- primarily because it is run by humans who sometimes innocently save too much or throw away too much. The answer is not in retention policies or discovery free zones, it is in realistically limiting overall expense of dispute resolution. Whether it is spending limits, conference that determine reasonable level of expense for dispu
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:05) BR: I was thinking more along the lines of encryption (digital signatures) to represent the content of the document without having to "look into" the document.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:05) Seems pretty bogus to me, if the materials have any real commercial purpose.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:05) I agree that there is a genuineness issue all through here, too
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:06) MH -- I don't understand. Encryption bogus?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:06) What do ppl think about J Saris's point about ADR?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:06) Not encryption, but the excuses for not being able to decrypt.
<BobStier> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:06) The systems that we develop to deal with these issues need to recognize that discovery practice is frequently an effort to impose a burden on an adversary for tactical reasons.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:06) cryptography. maybe we should switch to cryptography versus encryption. cryptography allows for digital signature of docs as well as encryption.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:07) The North west sickout case is summarized and commented on in the online library. feel free to take a look.
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:07) Judge Saris makes a very good point. Get to the final decision point faster is the answer. 95% settle.
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:07) ADR without info is just like trial without info, in terms of reaching the truth. Bob, what's the basis for your "frequently" statement? The empirical evidence to date does not support that.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) MH I am not so sure, there is a lot of encrypted stuff already that people in possession of do not have the "decryption mans" to.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) Did ppl notice the NW sickout case when it happened?
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) Sidney - are you suggesting a rush to judgemet based on incomple information - truth just rolled over in is grave
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) Yes -- definitely NOTICED case.
<BobStier> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) triallaw: I don't know how one gathers "empirical" evidence on that issue. I'm relying on 20 years experience litigating complex cases.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) BEnjamin: then why do they keep it?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) BR - Good to hear it. What did you think at the time? Did you believe the employees?
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:08) Is that the Northwest Airlines' case?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:09) Avniye, yes it is.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:09) MH - ("means") -- often becuase it performs some function.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:09) INFO: again, the background on the case can be found on the online library.
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:09) Enough basic information is usually available at the outset. I often settle cases -- plaintiff and defense -- before or just after initial pleadings without discovery. Investigation is cheaper.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:09) Sidney, sounds like you're a fan of Terry, our investigative expert.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:10) (<-- I've lost the sound)
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:10) BR - what function can it perform if they can't decrypt, and therefore access, it?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:10) Talia - I was opposed to the discovery and particularly to the seizures
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:10) BR: can you explain why?
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:11) Bob, I don't doubt that's the experience of several lawyers, in certain areas of litigation (usually they know because they do it themselves). But there is empirical research on discovery, and in the vast majority of cases it is simply not a problem. But it is a big problem in a small slice of cases. The problem is making rules for the system across the board that capture both realities. Probably judicial management is the better route.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:11) ALL: The NW case turns around some of our traditional perceptions of digital discovery rights. Was anyone else troubled by the story?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:12) Talia -- Long story. Short answer; I have a romantic fondness for Boyd v. US
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:12) BR: sounds interesting. we won't ask more. :)
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:12) MH - very possible that information does seomthing without otherwise being accessible. Consider present DVD case...
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:13) Talia -- no secrets... just a long discussion.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:13) Steve Heymann, for those who missed the intros, is with the AG's office in Boston.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:13) ...and not such a bad guy...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) Welcome Craig. Does anyone want to fill him in on where we are?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) is that the bearded chap speaking now on privacy?
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) BR: I know that case well, but I still don't get your point.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) Carlos, yes, Steve has a beard.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) Based on what I understand about the NW case, it appears to be a horrible precedent. Seizure of computers (whether physical seizure or "virtual seizure" like that describe by the panel) raises very serious issues of privacy. This privacy concern extends to both individuals and corporations (which have been recognized to have consitutional privacy rights).
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:14) Boyd -- it was about his rights in the contents of his desk.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:16) ALL: are people thinking of questions to challenge our panelists. What are the critical issues left untouched? or insufficiently addressed?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:16) Rosen's piece in Sunday NYTimes mag -- relation to context / control of relation
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:16) The "justice" and the ways of reaching it...
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:17) Do the panelist think there are any new rules needed to address electronic discovery or is it just a matter of education about the nature of electronic data?
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:17) Ben -- Agree, Rosen's piece was terrific!
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:17) BR: What did you think of Rosen's piece?
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:17) Following up on the privacy issue and the bad precedent of the NW case, I think the judge is making exactly the right analogy. We all recognize that no one has the right (except in extraordinary circumstances) to rummage through a person's or corporation's file cabinets to locate a few relevant docs. In the past (and properly) the responding party did that search and produced only the relevant docs. I suggest that the process and analysis should not be different when it comes to
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:18) I thought it was not bad. At least described what the issue regarding electronic privacy is to poeple who don't yet have it.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:18) What do ppl think of Joseph V's privacy point?
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:18) I thought Rosen did particularly well with the Lessig / Microsoft Case example.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) Does the panal think the NorthWest case is the thi edge of the wedge or a new open door on digital discovery
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) I think that's about right... I would defend the contents of my hard drive just as I would access to my home.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) Agree
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) I am scared it is wedge.
<DeborahGertsen> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) I agree with JV. In addition to privacy concerns, there are also serious privilege and work product concerns with allowing persons the ability to rummage through a person's or corporation's files.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:19) me to
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:20) privacy, individuality needs to be preserved...
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:21) Even at a time when hacking makes easily possible for being technologically imitated
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) Well, Lessig notwithstanding, hackability might yet not rise to the legal standard.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) The moderator asks a good question: Do we need to reconceive our concept of privacy because computers cause us to operate differently? I don't think that the tail should wag the dog. Privacy is a fundamental concept in our American tradition. Computers are tools. The tools shouldn't cause the concept (which traditionally has been reasonably clear) to be muddled.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) Talia - Is north West the thin edge of the wedge or an new open door of pandaoras box.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) AT: especially at such times... and you don't need hacking skills (e.g., "telnet smtp.dell.com 25")
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) Joseph, excellent point. But don't standards or possibilities of tech always change our perceptions of what is right?
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:22) Re home versus business computers, with telecommuting that distinction is getting to be pretty thin.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:23) JV: I'm not so sure the privacy conc3ept has been all that clear, but I agree with you nonetheless ;-)
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:23) ubiquitous cryptography.... I like this guy :-)
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:24) Good Point LAwrence: Talia, ask them about distributed information in the age of telecommuting
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:24) Law can't chase tech. But raw tech w/o law, particularly rights at law, is an ugly picture.
<VincePolley> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:24) (Real Player crashed -- going to leave and return)
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:25) MH and Lawrence: what exactly do you want to know?
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:25) Actually, I think they are addressing this question right now.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:26) Talia: a business intranet todat often extends (as the student just pointed out) into the home. How do we deal with that?
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:26) CG, is that a speci■fic case ? telnet.smpt.dell...?
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:26) =specific
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:27) I can remember running discovery in the early 80's where we took materials from executive office suites with a hand truck for review, prior to producing it. DO we now have to go to key employees homes with an electronic hand truck?
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:27) AT: note a case. just that people at large don't necessarily know how easy it is to electronic "pretend" if not forge someone else's identity. withouth solid cryptography you can't "trust" the source or content of an electronic document.
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:28) Thanks..
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:28) AT: here's the pseudonym/identity discussion...
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:29) MH -- that is the issue. I'm not in a hurry to go there.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:30) MH -- back to nature of info issue -- information is not alwyas "self-explicating" stuff. ASCII text often is. But increasingly...
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:30) corporate policies and (not to thump my podium) solid cryptography will allow you to create these buckets...
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:30) We are about to wrap this up. Many question left unanswered, which I think is the best sign of a good conversation and complex topic. We will continue with a threaded discussion you can connect to from the digital discovery website, and look forward to being in continued dialogue with you.
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:31) Re discovery of home computer hard disks: Suppose I keep all my work-related files on a zip disk. Can I turn over just the zip disk & keep my hard disk?
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:31) Apple Computer provides a public and private storage area for all OS 9 users now. The private drive requires a different password.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:31) There are a few follow-up questions -- Charlie Nesson will tell you how to get there. A chance to write your ideas, questions, fresh thoughts...
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:31) So, Sindey, price fixing will be done in the "private area"?
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:32) BR: what are you implying? :)
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:32) BR: You're probably right.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:32) That the earlier described problem regarding 'areas' is not exactly thereby solved.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:32) BR - I recognize that some "information" is a functional form of data, not text (if you see what I'm getting at)
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) The discussion of the ease of electronic searching is over simplified. If you search on "hot dogs" and the documents or e-mails discuss "franks," you will miss it. AOL uses bots to patrol for scam offers "from AOL," so scammers run them "from A^O^L" so the bots can't find them. etc.
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) MH - I absolutely agree.
<CarlosGomes> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) thank you Talia and the rest of your group. very interesting. best regards and best wishes to future engagements. C.G.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Just thinking outload, it appears that the discussion generally (not necessarily in this panel or in this chat) that the presumption is that it's OK to invade home computer privacy because we should presume the owner is hiding something and only an "objective" searcher can do a proper search. In analogous situations, we give (we are required to give) the benefit of the doubt to the other person. The fact that damaging evidence exists did not (in the past) give a carte blanche to
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Folks, we have follow-up questions we think it might be appropriate for you to fill out now.
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) You'll find them listed on the main webcast page from which you accessed this chat area.
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Thank you I very much enjoyed this confrence - will there be follow up conf.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) A great beginning. Thanks to all.
<JosephValentine> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Has this chat stopped?
<JohnCarroll> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Talia - thanks - As always the questions are many
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:33) Liam, there will indeed be follow-up.
<SidneyKanazawa> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Talia/Ben: you guys are good! Thanks
<LawrenceSolum> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Thanks, Talia! Great job.
<JonathanEisenberg> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Good work Talia/Ben. Thanks.
<BenEdelman> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) The questions are under Follow-Up Questions
<liamconnelly> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Great keep me posted I would like to be involved in that - bring in a Canadian UK perspective
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Thank you indeed all of you...
<triallaw> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Talia et al: Thanks!
<BenjaminReeve> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Thanks
<AvniyeTansug> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Bye for now!
<DeborahGertsen> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:34) Thanks Talia and Ben.
<MarkHerlihy> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:35) Nice work, Talia -- as always, these things are too short.
<TaliaMilgrom-Elcott> (Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:35) Mark, they are. But go ahead and answer questions... a chance to elongate the experience.