eDiscovery Daily Blog

• March 28, 2014

During our recently concluded thought leader interview series, we asked each of the interviewees their thoughts about the proposed eDiscovery rules amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that were published last August for public comment.  And, of course, they had plenty to say.  The majority of their comments related to the proposed amendment to Rule 37(e) which was intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation.  Now, it looks like the numerous public comments that were filed have resulted in a change to the rule.

By the February 15 deadline for the comment period, no less than 2,354 public comments had been filed.  Much of the controversy related to Rule 37(e)(1)(B), which included a hotly debated amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction, but only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith,” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.

Two subcommittees made significant changes to the rule, dropping the conditions for sanctions, which would appear to restore authority to the judiciary to decide the appropriateness of sanctions.  Here is the revised proposed rule in full:

Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

(e) FAILURE TO PRESERVE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Absent  exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system. If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, the court may:

(1) Order measures no greater than necessary to cure the loss of information, including permitting additional discovery; requiring the party to produce information that would otherwise not be reasonably accessible; and ordering the party to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the loss, including attorney’s fees.

(2) Upon a finding of prejudice to another party from loss of the information, order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.

(3) Only upon a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;

(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or

(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

(4) In applying Rule 37(e), the court should consider all relevant factors, including:

(A) the extent to which the party was on notice that litigation was likely and that the information would be relevant;

(B) the reasonableness of the party’s efforts to preserve the information;

(C) the proportionality of the preservation efforts to any anticipated or ongoing litigation; and

(D) whether, after commencement of the action, the party timely sought the court’s guidance on any unresolved disputes about preserving discoverable information.

So, what do you think? Are the changes an improvement?  Did the subcommittees go far enough? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.