We can find almost anything on the Internet.  The problem is finding what we’ve already found when we want to find it again.  Are there ways to “harvest” the web so we can find and read research at a later time?  In this episode, we take a look at ways to store and keep track of what you find in your web research, resources for reading web findings later or when you are offline, and whether techniques like capturing blog posts for reading later on a Kindle or iPad really help us with the problem of information overload.

Link to the episode:  Find it Now, Read it Later

Segment 1:  Find it Now, Read it Later

Segment 2:  The Rant. This week, Tom rants about blog posts where people say technology isn’t changing much about how we practice law.

Segment 3:  Parting Shots

Recorded:  June 30, 2012
Length:  38:57

The Kennedy-Mighell Report is sponsored by:


PC Law  by:

Share this post:
  • Great show. Info overload is something to which everyone (even Luddite litigators) can relate.

    Your discussion about the myriad ways you are each using, processing and consuming information was easy to follow, but gave me chills when I thought about how much eDiscovery agita would be generated if a custodian was similarly sophisticated. Easy to imagine IP litigation, or even copyright infringement ases, forcing some poor schmuck to translate similar activity into a defensible discovery approach (and related 26(g) certification).

    I’d be very interested in your views on the eDiscovery aspects of the approaches you described in the show, especially if you see no significant issue(s).


    • TomMighell

      Speaking only for the workflow that I follow (Google Reader –> Instapaper –> Evernote), there are definitely e-Discovery implications for the end of that process, but I don’t really see issues with the first part – using Google Reader is just like browsing the Internet – less likely to have relevant ESI, but Google Reader can hold everything forever, so from a preservation standpoint that shouldn’t be an issue.

      Same with Instapaper – once I save research I want to read, it’s being stored in Instapaper forever – it’s another repository where information is being held, but would that publicly-available information be relevant?

      To me, the Evernote part of the workflow has the biggest ESI concerns, because you can save ANYTHING to it – not just web pages, but any notes you want to take on your own – written or audio. All data in your Evernote account is kept online, forever, so preservation is not an issue – and the user will have a local copy stored on their computer. Keeping a backup of that data might be a good idea, even though there’s a copy online – so locating the data store on a shared drive should be considered. But to me, the biggest concern is Identification – if lawyers don’t know about something like Evernote, they aren’t likely to ask for it – so the questions for the custodian should be open-ended enough to allow the custodian to remember “that’s right, I’m keeping stuff in Evernote, too.”

      Did that answer the question? This isn’t just an e-Discovery issue, there are information governance issues here as well – a lot of things to consider.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can
take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...