Close
Enter your
text here
Posts By :

Doug Austin

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Rules 'Circumstantial Evidence' Must Support Authorship of Text Messages for Admissibility

When are text messages admissible in court? Which text messages qualify as evidence, and what does it take to prove authorship of a text message?

A recent opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Commonwealth v. Koch, No. 1669-MDA-2010, 2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2716 (Sept. 16, 2011), addresses these very issues in an old yet new way, perhaps setting the precedent for future cases and opening what seems to be a potential Pandora’s Box of obstacles to the use of text messages as legal evidence.

  • In Commonwealth v. Koch, a transcript of thirteen SMS text messages were submitted by the prosecution and admitted into evidence. Although these text messages had been sent from a cell phone owned by the defendant, defense objected to their admission on the grounds that no evidence substantiated the defendant’s authorship of the text messages in question.
  • In fact, witnesses had testified that other people had been seen using the cell phone. Several of the thirteen text messages referred to the defendant in the third person, which substantiated the defendant’s claim that she had not written or sent the text messages.
  • The court concluded based on case history that “emails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally” and found that the evidence that the defendant had authored these text messages was absent.
  • Ruling that the defendant’s ownership of the cell phone was not enough to prove that she had sent the messages in question, the court declared that parties seeking to introduce electronic materials, such as cell phone text messages and email, must be prepared to substantiate their claim of authorship with “circumstantial evidence” that corroborates the sender’s identity. That evidence may come in the form of testimony from the sender or recipient, testimony of witnesses to the creation of the correspondence, or even “contextual clues” in the message itself.

Where written correspondence may be subjected to questioning (e.g., signatures can be forged or letterhead copied), eDiscovery materials that clearly come from a given email account or cell phone source have been historically less open to scrutiny.  However, since cell phones and even email accounts may be shared (or hacked), this could leave room for argument, as in this case, that the correspondence in question did not originate with the party who appears to have sent it.

In one respect, applying the old standard of evidence to new ESI materials, such as text messages might make sense. On the other hand, doing so also opens the door for defense attorneys to use the same tactic to remove text messages and email correspondence from evidence – whether or not they are legitimately relevant in court – based on the extreme challenge of proving the issue of authorship.

So, what do you think? Was the court right in ruling against the admission of these text messages as evidence? Does this decision create more eDiscovery problems than it solves? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Reporting from the 2011 EDRM Mid-Year Meeting
 

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project, created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market, is now in its seventh year of operation.  Most references to the eDiscovery industry these days refer to the EDRM model as the standard representation of the eDiscovery life cycle.  I’m happy to say I’ve been a participating member for all but the first year of its existence and that CloudNine Discovery is a participating provider.  And, this blog has certainly noted some of the recent efforts and accomplishments within EDRM, including the recently announced information governance collaboration efforts between EDRM and ARMA and the announcement of the first draft of the Model Code of Conduct (MCoC) to focus on the ethical duties of eDiscovery service providers and their clients.

This week, the EDRM Mid-Year meeting has taken place in St. Paul, MN (giving some of us a chance to break out our winter clothes early!).  Twice a year, in May and October, eDiscovery professionals who are EDRM members meet to continue the process of working together on various standards projects.

I have joined the new Testing working group, which has been created to provide a methodology for risk evaluation through validation and verification of eDiscovery processes and technologies.  We spent time the past two days working to develop a survey of eDiscovery professionals to help us prioritize activities for testing methodology development and the beginning of a checklist for litigation hold notification processes and software.

As data set development is a key component of a good testing program, we also worked to identify additional file types and anomalies to add to the current EDRM Data Set project to aid in that testing.  Though the current data set, based on public domain Enron case data, has proven to be an excellent resource for testing eDiscovery software and processes, there are several test examples that could be added to ensure a more complete test set.  The Testing working group plans to finalize a first cut at additional data set needs in the next few weeks and will likely take an active role in locating or creating those additional test set examples.

Highlights of activities for other working groups in the Mid-Year meeting include:

  • Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM): Working on completing a guide for using the IGRM model as well as use cases and a toolkit for facilitating understanding of the model and how to implement it.
  • Evergreen: Has started work on an educational initiative, coordinating with the IGRM working group.
  • Model Code of Conduct: Has implemented changes resulting from comments to the working draft of the MCoC document and will be posting the final version of the code soon, they will then be implementing a mechanism to track and recognize the organizations that volunteer to adhere to the code.
  • Search: Working on a Sampling and Validation paper and expects to have a working draft ready for comment soon, they also plan to complete a Search Intent Framework and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document by next year’s annual meeting.
  • XML: Has revamped the downloads page for downloading the XML schema, with version 1.1 of the schema currently available and a press release to announce version 2.0 of the schema coming soon.

These highlights are based on my notes, so, EDRM members, if I misstated or left out anything, please feel free to comment.

So, what do you think?  Has EDRM impacted how you manage eDiscovery?  If so, how?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Sanctioned for Abandonment and Sale of Server; Defendants' Counsel Unaware of Spoliation

An Illinois District Court ordered heavy sanctions against the defense for spoliation “willfully and in bad faith” of documents stored on a server, in a case revolving around damages sought for breach of loan agreements.

In United Cent. Bank v. Kanan Fashions, Inc., No. 10 C 331, 2011 WL 4396856 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2011), the defendants were found to have hidden and sold (or fabricated the sale of) a server which was subject to discovery. The defendants also misled their own counsel about their discovery procedures with regard to its preservation obligations and the sale of this crucial server. Accordingly, a magistrate judge ruled in favor of sanctions against the defendants based almost entirely on recommendations made in United Cent. Bank v. Kanan Fashions, Inc., No. 10 CV 331, 2011 WL 4396912 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2011):

  • Although the defendants’ counsel reminded them several times of their obligation to preserve evidence, and the defendants claimed at all times that they were taking the necessary steps to ensure a smooth and correct discovery process, they misled their own attorneys. In fact, the defendants proceeded to sell a server that contained information relevant to the suit.
  • The circumstances associated with the sale were extensive, involving the defendants defaulting on a loan on the warehouse in which the server was stored. When they made plans for foreclosure on the warehouse, they also made arrangements that the bank would purchase the lease on the server, originally held by a different lender, without informing their defense lawyers.
  • When defense counsel learned of the foreclosure and these arrangements, the defendants maintained that they could get access to the server as needed for discovery.
  • Several months later, the court ordered the defendants to retrieve either the server or a forensic copy of its contents for discovery. It was only a few days later that the defendants informed their counsel and the court that the server had been sold by the bank to a business in Dubai.
  • All of the above took place after the defendants had been repeatedly informed of the need to preserve evidence for discovery, and of their obligations with regard to ESI.
  • The circumstances of the sale of the server were so unusual that the court concluded that the defendants had, themselves, had a hand in the sale of the server to Dubai and the removal of the server from the court’s reach.
  • The magistrate judge found that defendants were solely responsible for the spoliation, having deliberately misled the court, the plaintiffs, and the defendant’s own counsel.
  • Defendants were ordered to pay sanctions that include reimbursement of the plaintiff for all costs related to the Motion for Sanctions. Defendants are also “barred from introducing any evidence regarding the data on the warehouse server”. The jury is to be “informed of the Defendants’ abandoning of the server” and instructed that the spoliation of the server “may be considered evidence that the server contained evidence unfavorable to Defendants’ position.”
  • The plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defense counsel was dismissed by the magistrate judge.

So, what do you think? Have you ever been involved in a case where a similar instance of spoliation took place? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Strategy: "Command" Model of eDiscovery Must Make Way for Collaboration

Last week’s article on Law Technology News summarizes the message put forward by several speakers at the fifth annual Colorado Association of Litigation Support Professionals E-Discovery Summit, held on October 7, 2011. In her article E-Discovery ‘Command’ Culture Must Collapse, Monica Bay discusses the old “command” style of eDiscovery, with a senior partner leading his “troops” like General George Patton – a model that summit speakers agree is “doomed to failure” – and reports on the findings put forward by judges and litigators that the time has come for true collaboration.

The highlights of the summit as far as a collaborative model of eDiscovery include thoughts by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty and Florida attorney William Hamilton, who say the time has come for adversarial, command-style eDiscovery to be replaced by a collaborative model, even with opponents, to result in a more effective discovery process.

Here is a brief summary of their opinions on the future of eDiscovery.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty: Negotiation and Early Presentation of ESI are Key

Judge Michael Hegarty, of the U.S. District Court (Colorado), believes that minimal court intervention in discovery is best, but that mistakes are often made early on that cause discovery problems with respect to ESI.

  • He remarked on how common it is for litigators to neglect to mention discovery of electronic materials in early conferences, and how “detrimental” that can be to cases.
  • Judge Hegarty noted that a great deal of eDiscovery is unduly complicated because lawyers don’t understand the scope of what it is possible to do with electronic materials. “It’s easy for a party to say, ‘We can’t do that,'” he said, “but it’s hard to imagine that something can’t be done.” He noted the lack of understanding as a key source of friction, and finds that he often has to wade in and order parties to purchase software that will make it possible for them to conduct complete discovery.
  • The bottom line, according to Hegarty, is that the vast majority of cases never go to trial – surprisingly less than one percent of Colorado cases ever see a courtroom – and that’s the way it should be. “We can’t have discovery disputes sit around for months,” he said. It’s important to facilitate a communication process that includes ESI where appropriate in order to settle cases and move them along.

William Hamilton: Support Staff Make Like Possible for Attorneys

William Hamilton is a partner at Quarles and Brady in Tampa, Florida. He is also a professor at the University of Florida’s law school, Levin College, where he teaches “Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence”. Hamilton is also dean of an online graduate certificate program in eDiscovery at Bryan University, and chair of the advisory board of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

  • Hamilton’s speech focused heavily on the role of support staff, the people who “make life possible for attorneys”. He says paralegals and technology staff have a larger role to play in discovery than ever before, but must be careful not to cross over into unauthorized legal practice as they assist litigators.
  • He pointed out a need for change in the very culture of legal practice, where “[h]ierarchy culture disenfranchises everybody”. Bad decision making results from choices made by: “1) habit, 2) reputation, 3) haste, and 4) ‘pure command decisions”, he noted.
  • “Only 10 percent of lawyers ‘get’ e-discovery,” says Hamilton. It’s time for that to change, he says, as a new paradigm for discovery of electronic materials is born.

Learn more about the Colorado Association of Litigation Support Professionals E-Discovery Summit on the Association’s website or read the complete article on Hamilton and Hegarty’s presentations at Law Technology News.

So, what do you think? Is a top-down approach to eDiscovery still viable, or is there a real need for the process to change to a more collaborative and communicative one? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: U.S. Court Rules on ECPA Protection of Emails in the Cloud
 

An October 3 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offers new clarity in defining and protecting the eDiscovery rights of non-U.S. nationals using U.S. services online, by ruling that emails stored on servers located within the U.S. are protected by national laws on ESI.

In Suzlon Energy Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation, the court determined that holders of online accounts whose servers are located in the U.S., regardless of their location or nationality, are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, commonly known as the "ECPA." The ECPA ensures that the disclosure of emails by electronic communication service providers is limited and restricted to specific circumstances.

The Suzlon case originated out of an Australian case brought by an Indian company (Suzlon) against an Indian defendant, Rajagopalan Sridhar and put the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion on the reach of the ECPA to the test.

  • The plaintiff's legal counsel sought access to emails in the defendant's Hotmail account, stored on Microsoft servers located in the U.S.
  • The defendant did not provide consent for his emails to be used in discovery, nor did Microsoft consent to release the emails in question.
  • Microsoft's objection brought the case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and later before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which agreed that the emails were protected by the ECPA.
  • Despite the plaintiff's and defendant's Indian nationality, and the fact that the suit in question was Australian, the U.S. court ruled in a manner that creates a powerful precedent for future lawsuits related to electronic communication providers whose servers are located in the U.S. As a result of this case, it has become clear that any users with accounts in U.S.-held cloud services will be subject to the same protections under the ECPA as a U.S. citizen.

So, what do you think? Does this ruling offer fair and sensible protect to U.S.-based companies and the users of their cloud services, or does it unnecessarily complicate the field of international eDiscovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Service Providers Unite!

While mergers and acquisitions of major eDiscovery providers (such as Symantec’s acquisition of Clearwell and HP’s acquisition of Autonomy) dominate the headlines, the majority of eDiscovery providers are actually small to midsized companies that provide a full range of services from coast to coast.  To enable the small/midsized providers to compete with the eDiscovery “bohemoths” of the world, Jerry Correia and Greg Bayless formed the Legal Service Providers Association (LSPA).

The LSPA’s mission is to help the small/midsized legal service providers grow and thrive by providing access to increased sales and marketing opportunities, training and certification programs, supplier discounts, and human resources support. The idea is that “strength in numbers” can enable LSPA’s members to compete on an equal footing with the “big boys”.

Jerry and Greg have 38 years experience in the legal services industry, managing companies providing services to law firms and corporate legal departments.  They’ve spent the last 15 years to running companies focused on helping vendors in the legal services industry improve and grow by providing training, consulting, staffing and national referral services.  They started the LSPA in January of this year with the belief that small to midsized companies are the best suited for and the most dedicated to providing the service excellence clients have come to expect and demand, but few providers can develop and negotiate the kinds of programs and discounts available to Fortune 500 corporations by themselves.  Through membership in the LSPA, members can benefit from savings including up to 60% from suppliers such as Staples or UPS, which not only benefits the providers, but also their clients where savings can be passed along.

Since announcing its charter member program back in February, the LSPA has added 40 charter members to date.  While all members of the LSPA enjoy benefits such as training and supplier credits and discounts, and sales/marketing and technical support, charter member companies receive additional exposure and branding opportunities through premium placements on their website, emails, press releases and newsletters.

Part of LSPA’s education program includes webinars available to its members.  In the past two months, LSPA has conducted webinars related to understanding the risks associated with collecting ESI (conducted by Jason Park, owner of MD5 Group) and top 10 eDiscovery trends and predictions (conducted by Maura R. Grossman, Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and Ronald J. Hedges, former United States Magistrate Judge).

Want to learn more?  Tomorrow, the LSPA is conducting an Informational and Membership Benefits webinar where they will discuss the vision for the LSPA, describe member benefits and discuss how to join the organization.  To register for the webinar, click here.

So, what do you think?  Do you use small or medium providers for eDiscovery services?  Does the LSPA make those providers better?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: CloudNine Discovery is a charter member of the LSPA.

eDiscovery Searching: A Great Example of Why Search Results Need to Be Tested
 

In my efforts to stay abreast of current developments in eDiscovery (and also to identify great blog post ideas!), I subscribe to and read a number of different sources for information.  That includes some of the “web crawling” services that identify articles, press releases and other publications such as the Pinhawk Law Technology Daily Digest, which is one of my favorite resources and always has interesting stories to read.  I also have a Google Alert set up to deliver stories on “e-Discovery” via a daily email.

So, I got a chuckle out of one of the stories that both sources (and probably others, as well) highlighted last week:

A+E, Discovery get ready to roll out

The story is about two of the biggest players in the global TV, A+E Networks and Discovery Networks, rolling out their channels into India and Latin America respectively.  The article proceeds to discuss the challenges of rolling out these channels into markets with various requirements and several languages and dialects included in those markets.

This story has nothing to do with eDiscovery.

Why did it wind up in the list of eDiscovery stories returned by these two services?  Because the story title “A+E, Discovery get ready to roll out” retrieved a hit on “e-Discovery”.  Many search engines are generally set to ignore punctuation when searching, so a search for “e-Discovery” actually looks like a search for “e Discovery” to a search engine (keep in mind searches are also usually case insensitive).  So, a document with a title of “A+E, Discovery get ready to roll out” could actually be viewed by a search engine as “a e discovery get ready to roll out”, causing the document to be considered a “hit” for “e discovery”.

This is just one example why search results can retrieve unexpected results.  And, why a defensible search process (such as the “STARR” approach outlined here) that involves testing and refining searches is vital to maximizing your search recall and precision.

BTW, this can happen to any search engine, so it’s not a reflection on either Pinhawk or Google.  Both are excellent resources that can occasionally retrieve non relevant results, just like any other “web crawling” service.

So, what do you think?  Did you see this story crop up in the eDiscovery listings?  Have you encountered similar examples of search anomalies?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

State eDiscovery Rules: Florida Moves to Adopt New Civil Procedure Rules on eDiscovery
 

Florida is currently preparing to adopt a set of changes to its Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to discovery of ESI, closely founded on the changes made to the Federal Rules in 2006. Based on the recommendation of the Florida Civil Rules Electronic Discovery Subcommittee, the full Rules Committee voted on implementing changes now rather than waiting until 2013 when these rules would normally be considered.

Florida eDiscovery Rules to Mimic Federal Rules – Mostly

On July 29, the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar accepted the plan to adopt changes as soon as this fall – changes that essentially copy those made to the Federal Rules except for the elimination of the Federal Rule 26(f) "meet and confer" conference, which will not be considered a mandatory part of discovery of ESI by Florida courts.

However, since this type of early conference is required by circuit courts in Miami, Orland and Tampa – three of Florida's largest judicial areas – that should minimize the risk that issues of major importance regarding eDiscovery will be overlooked, at least in many major business cases. What's more, Florida has a special rule that mandates early conferences in cases that are considered "complex".

New Florida Rules

The new rules are expected to have a significant positive effect on Florida courts, for several reasons:

  • The near-duplication of current federal rules for eDiscovery provides Florida courts with much-needed guidance on the role and implications of ESI in discovery.
  • It creates consistency between federal and state rules, important where national corporations may be involved in cases in Florida.
  • It also enables Florida courts to rely on federal precedent, preventing Florida lawyers from the need to "reinvent the wheel," and allowing them to draw on federal decisions and judgments.
  • Finally, the similarities between the new Florida rules and existing federal rules will prevent plaintiffs from "shopping" courts depending on the rules and regulations assigned to eDiscovery.

With the improvement in clarity of eDiscovery procedures and the strong connection between state and federal rules, these amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure seem poised to make discovery proceedings simpler and easier in the sunshine state.

So, what do you think? Are the changes to Florida's eDiscovery procedures positive? Is the omission of something like Federal Rule 26(f) a serious problem, or is it insignificant? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Opinions…Everybody Has One
 

With the number of presidential candidacy polls already being conducted with over a year(!) before the 2012 presidential election, it’s no surprise that just about everyone is willing to express an opinion on just about anything.  With that in mind, one of the best eDiscovery blogs out there, Ralph Losey’s e-Discovery Team blog, is currently conducting a confidential poll of its readers related to various eDiscovery topics.

Using Polldaddy.com, Ralph asks questions related to various eDiscovery topics, including confidentiality orders, privacy rights, eDiscovery certification and new Federal Rules for eDiscovery.  He even asks a polling question of his readers as to whether they like these polls!  Amazingly, 13 people (10.48%) so far have responded ‘no’ to that question, which makes me wonder why they would take the time to respond when they don’t like polls?  Hmmm…  😉

Each of the polling questions not only provides a button to vote, but also provides a link to view results.  If there’s an end date to the poll at some point, Ralph doesn’t indicate one, so it appears that the ‘polls’ are open indefinitely.  The questions each have ‘yes’ and ‘no’ selections, along with an ‘other’ (with space to put in a comment and usually a fourth qualifying option (for example, question #2 below provides a choice for ‘Most of the time, but not always’).

I don’t want to “steal anyone’s thunder” and report current results, but you can use the link above to check out current results for each of the questions.  I will say that it appears that most of the questions have at least 100 responses so far, with some having a clear majority opinion and others being much more evenly distributed in responses.  Here are the questions Ralph asks in his blog post (excepting the aforementioned question about liking polls):

  1. Should courts routinely enter umbrella confidentiality protective orders during the discovery phase of the case?
  2. Should the public have a right to see all information filed with a court?
  3. Should all information accepted into evidence in a trial be disclosed to the public?
  4. Should Plaintiffs in civil suits have a right to protect from public disclosure any of their confidential information that is directly relevant to their case?
  5. Should Defendants in civil suits have a right to protect from public disclosure their confidential information that is directly relevant to the case?
  6. Should corporations have the same privacy rights as individuals?
  7. Is lack of privacy a problem in the United States?
  8. Are you concerned about your employer's right to read your email?
  9. Would you like stronger U.S. privacy laws where no one can read your email and other personal communications without your permission? (multiple answers allowed)
  10. Would you like to see privacy protection on the Internet strengthened?
  11. Do you agree with Patrick Oot? (and his criticism of eDiscovery certification programs)
  12. Do you think there is a need for certification of expertise in the field of electronic discovery?*
  13. Do you think there is a need for extensive training programs in e-discovery law?
  14. Do we need to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure again soon to address e-discovery issues?
  15. Do we need to amend the FRCP to add one or more new rules on preservation?
  16. Should the rules be amended to limit the scope of relevancy in discovery?

*I have a ‘bone to pick’ with one of the potential responses to question 12 (Yes, but only State Bar Associations should do it) as it implies that the only people who need certification are attorneys and other legal practitioners, when technologists and consultants need it too.

I encourage you to check out the post, vote and view current results.  Even if you don’t like polls.  😉

So, what do you think?  Can we learn anything from polls like this?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Law: Model Order Proposes to Limit eDiscovery in Patent Cases
 

A recent article in Texas Lawyer discussed the new model order proposed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader as a measure against the "excesses" of eDiscovery production. As noted at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference in Irving last week, the "Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases" was unanimously voted on by the Federal Circuit Advisory Council and, as a result, could significantly alter the way discovery materials are used in patent cases.

What's Wrong with eDiscovery Now?

In his speech at the 2011 Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference, "Thoughts on the Status and Direction of Patent Litigation in the United States," Judge Rader accuses the courts of becoming “intolerantly expensive”, forcing “accused infringers to acquiesce to non-meritorious claims” therefore imposing “an unhealthy tax on innovation and open competition”.  He compared the model order to the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which limits cases to 10 depositions of 7 hours or fewer.

Rader said "the greatest weakness of the U.S. court system is its expense. And the driving factor for that expense is discovery excesses." Hence, the proposed model order to save the participants in these cases time and money.

Model Order Proposes Limits on eDiscovery

Rader's model order would create several limits on the production of electronically stored information in patent cases, including:

  • Exclusion of metadata from eDiscovery production requests without "good cause";
  • Restrictions on email production requests to specific issues and “not general discovery of a product or business”;
  • Delaying of email production requests until after disclosures about the patents, the accused uses of the invention, relevant financial information and the prior art;
  • A maximum of five custodians per party in email requests, and only five search terms each, unless courts specifically allow in excess of that number (if litigants submit requests that exceed those court orders, they must pay for the extra production);
  • Receiving parties cannot use materials asserted by producing parties as attorney-client or work product privileged;
  • Prohibitions on the use of privileged information produced as part of a mass production or other inadvertent release.

For more information about this model order and its implications, see Model Order Would Limit E-Discovery in Patent Cases.

So, what do you think?  Will the model order “catch on” as a way to limit the eDiscovery possible in patent cases?  Will other jurisdictions adopt the model order? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.