eDiscovery Daily Blog
What Do YOU Want for Christmas?: eDiscovery Wishes
Last year, I discussed what I want for Christmas (from an eDiscovery standpoint anyway) and we’ll take a look at those eDiscovery Christmas wishes and see how they turned out. This year, I thought it would be fun to turn the tables and ask (again, from an eDiscovery standpoint): What Do YOU Want for Christmas?
Here are a couple of the things I wished for last year:
Consistency in Awarding Costs for eDiscovery Services: Last year, we discussed how we’ve seen numerous prevailing parties request recovery of costs, including eDiscovery costs and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (especially §1920(4) is typically reference by judges in making the decisions. However, it seemed through last year, that we’ve seen as many cases where the recovery costs are denied (or overturned on appeal) as we have where they are approved. How did we do this year?
We didn’t cover a lot of cases related to recovery of costs this year (four in total: two cases where costs were awarded, one case where some eDiscovery costs were awarded and one case where recovery of eDiscovery costs was denied). There is another case that we haven’t covered (at least yet) where costs were awarded. So, not enough data to award anything other than an “incomplete”, but the trend may be tending toward awarding the costs. We’ll see if that continues in 2016.
Rule 37(e) Won’t Give Producing Parties Too Much Latitude in Failing to Preserve Data: I know what you’re thinking – how can we assess this one given that the >new rules just went into effect on December 1? Maybe we can’t. However, would some courts begin to issue rulings that reflected the coming changes to Rule 37(e)?
So far, a cursory review of the cases we covered last year indicates there are still plenty of sanctions being issued. Out of 24 cases that we covered this year where parties requested sanctions, 15 of them resulted in some sort of sanction being awarded. Even though at least one party could escape sanctions despite failing to implement a litigation hold and another can manage to avoid a default judgment (twice) despite falsifying produced medical records and, later on, running CCLeaner on her hard drive to delete files, more parties than not received sanctions for their perceived eDiscovery failures in the cases we covered. So far, so good – let’s see if that changes in 2016.
You can look at my other eDiscovery Christmas wishes from last year here.
But enough about me! What about you? What would you like for Christmas – from us?
At the end of every post (and there have been 1,318 published posts by us since our first day on September 20, 2010), I ask the readers to “Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.” It’s my way of asking you what you’d like to see us cover in the blog. After all, we write it for you.
So, what would you like to see us cover in the coming year? More posts about Technology Assisted Review? Information Governance? More coverage of industry surveys and studies? More thought leader interviews? Guest posts? After flying solo on the blog for over a year now (and, boy, are my arms tired!), I could go for that one! More coverage of case law? Though, having devoted 89 posts this year to eDiscovery case law. I’m not sure we can top that one… :o)
Regardless, we want to hear from you. Please tell us what you want for gift for Christmas – from eDiscovery Daily! We will do our best to deliver in this coming year and try not to leave you with a lump of coal (unless we cover a lawsuit involving coal mining!)
So, what do you think? What do you want for Christmas gifts from eDiscovery Daily? Maybe gift baskets for Christmas is the way to go? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic. Seriously. I really mean it.
eDiscovery Daily is taking a break for the holidays (so I can rest my tired arms) and will return on Monday, January 4.
Happy Holidays from CloudNine Discovery!
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.