eDiscovery Daily Blog

• April 15, 2011

 

A few months ago, eDiscovery Daily posted about discovery of databases and how few legal teams understand database discovery and know how to handle it.  We provided a little pop quiz to test your knowledge of databases, with the answers here.

Last month, The Sedona Conference® Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) published the Public Comment Version of The Sedona Conference® Database Principles – Addressing the Preservation & Production of Databases &Database Information in Civil Litigation to provide guidance and recommendations to both requesting and producing parties to simplify discovery of databases and information derived from databases.  You can download the publication here.

As noted in the Executive Overview of the publication, some of the issues that make database discovery so challenging include:

• More enterprise-level information is being stored in searchable data repositories, rather than in discrete electronic files,
• The diverse and complicated ways in which database information can be stored has made it difficult to develop universal “best-practice” approaches to requesting and producing information stored in databases,
• Retention guidelines that make sense for archival databases (databases that add new information without deleting past records) rapidly break down when applied to transactional databases where much of the system’s data may be retained for a limited time – as short as thirty days or even thirty seconds.

The commentary is broken into three primary sections:

• Section I: Introduction to databases and database theory,
• Section II: Application of The Sedona Principles, designed for all forms of ESI, to discovery of databases,
• Section III: Proposal of six new Principles that pertain specifically to databases with commentary to support the Working Group’s recommendations.  The principles are stated as follows:
  • Absent a specific showing of need or relevance, a requesting party is entitled only to database fields that contain relevant information, not the entire database in which the information resides or the underlying database application or database engine.
  • Due to differences in the way that information is stored or programmed into a database, not all information in a database may be equally accessible, and a party’s request for such information must be analyzed for relevance and proportionality.
  • Requesting and responding parties should use empirical information, such as that generated from test queries and pilot projects, to ascertain the burden to produce information stored in databases and to reach consensus on the scope of discovery.
  • A responding party must use reasonable measures to validate ESI collected from database systems to ensure completeness and accuracy of the data acquisition.
  • Verifying information that has been correctly exported from a larger database or repository is a separate analysis from establishing the accuracy, authenticity, or admissibility of the substantive information contained within the data.
  • The way in which a requesting party intends to use database information is an important factor in determining an appropriate format of production.

To submit a public comment, you can download a public comment form here, complete it and fax (yes, fax) it to The Sedona Conference® at 928-284-4240.  You can also email a general comment to them at tsc@sedona.net.

eDiscovery Daily will be delving into this document in more detail in future posts.  Stay tuned!

So, what do you think?  Do you have a need for guidelines for database discovery?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.