Close
Enter your
text here

Federal eDiscovery Rules

Five eDiscovery Trailblazing Judges – eDiscovery Trends

Yesterday, we discussed an article in The American Lawyer by Alan Cohen about six people who deserve special consideration as true trailblazers in eDiscovery.  Today, let’s take a look at five trailblazing judges in eDiscovery.

In Lisa Holton’s article (E-Discovery: A Front-Row Seat), also in The American Lawyer, she discusses how “judges…saw how uninformed many attorneys and their clients were about technology and how resistant they were to a series of new rules.”  She profiles five “pioneers” that “have not only set the stage in procedure and case law, but have become teachers, writers, activists, and ongoing critics of this rapidly changing industry.”  Here they are:

Shira Scheindlin, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Perhaps the most famous judge of the most famous case, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, (which addressed legal holds on electronic documents) Judge Scheindlin has had a dramatic effect on shaping the industry.  She also proceeded to address the levels of culpability — negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the electronic discovery context in her famous Pension Committee opinion.  As Holton notes in her article, “Scheindlin’s involvement in the ongoing e-discovery pilot project dealing with complex litigation in the Southern District is an example of her continuing work to shape and improve e-discovery processes. And she’s been vocal on the issue of proportionality—the need to balance the total cost of electronic document discovery with the value of the case—from the start.”  She has also been a busy speaker on eDiscovery topics and co-published a book back in 2009 called Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence in a Nutshell.

Lee Rosenthal, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas: After being elevated to chairman of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2003, Judge Rosenthal led the effort to create and adopt the 2006 amendments to the rules that addressed – for the first time – how electronically stored information (ESI) should be handled in civil litigation.  These Federal Rules have been instrumental in providing guidance to attorneys and judges on how to address issues with ESI, and the article provides some interesting “backstory” regarding that process.

Andrew Peck, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York: Judge Peck has been a leader in the effort to use technology to assist with the searching and review process and his February 2012 decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe & MSL Group is considered by many to be the first ruling approving computer-assisted review (click here for the considerable dispute that has followed) and his article Search, Forward is one of the few judicial articles advocating the use of computer-assisted review, which has become perhaps the hottest topic in eDiscovery today.

Paul Grimm, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: Judge Grimm has been a key advocate for proportionality and cooperation in the eDiscovery process.  His ruling in 2008’s Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Services Co. contained a detailed examination of Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which covers eDiscovery duty to disclose requirements, and other law calling for cooperation among parties in discovery.  His ruling of severe sanctions in Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. was also the very first case this blog covered on our very first day.  🙂

John Facciola, U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judge Facciola’s key eDiscovery opinions include: Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Executive Office of the President (which forced preservation of digital media in government); United States v. O’Keefe (which set guidelines for keyword challenges); and Equity Analytics v. Lundin (which set guidelines for challenges or defenses of search methodology).  Also, In Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., he laid down the law to the parties in the case requiring cooperation on eDiscovery issues, stating “there is a new sheriff in town—not Gary Cooper, but me.”

A link to Lisa’s article is here.  So, what do you think?  How have these judicial trailblazers influenced you?   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.

Want to Make eDiscovery Proportional? Tie it to the Amount at Stake – eDiscovery Trends

Apparently, the effect of the proposed amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure approved for public comment may not be limited to just Federal courts.  They also could have a significant effect on New York’s state courts as well.

According to Brendan Pierson in the New York Law Journal (Proposal Would Tie Scope of Discovery to Amount in Controversy), the “most sweeping change would amend Rule 26(b)(1) to require that courts allow discovery that is ‘proportional to the needs of the case considering the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’”  Since New York courts “generally follow” the current federal discovery standard in which any material that could lead to admissible evidence is generally discoverable (regardless of the amount in controversy), the presumption is that they would follow the new standard as well.

If the US system is the “broadest discovery system on the planet” (according to Alvin Lindsay, a Hogan Lovells partner and an expert in discovery issues), the proposed changes would “bring discovery in the United States more in line with the rest of the world”.

The author cites the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg case as a key turning point in the number of documents preserved and produced in litigation and that growing eDiscovery costs have led to a “backlash among practitioners”.  According to experts, the proposed rules changes are “likely to gain broad support”.  “I don’t know who you’re going to get who’s going to oppose the principle of proportionality,” said Paul Sarkozi, a partner at Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt and vice-chair of the commercial litigation section of the New York State Bar Association.

However, one “possible source of opposition could be class action plaintiffs attorneys, who can sometimes benefit from the more extensive discovery available under current rules”.  It will be interesting to see if there is considerable opposition from plaintiffs’ attorneys.  For more in the article, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you pleased or concerned with the proposed amendments?  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.

eDiscovery Vendors Are Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions – eDiscovery Case Law

In Nuance Communications Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al., no 3:08-cv-02912 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2013), California District Judge Jeffrey S. White refused Wednesday to dismiss Nuance Communications Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Lexmark International Inc. and Abbyy Software House, and awarded reimbursement of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $130,000 as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy.

In this patent infringement case, this order addressed motions for summary judgment filed by both defendants as well as a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as part of discovery sanctions filed by the plaintiff.  Judge White found that “these matters are appropriate for disposition without oral argument” and vacated the hearing scheduled two days later to discuss them.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff “went so far as to congratulate ABBYY’s top management on the product” upon its release, “and only sued on the alleged infringement six years later, after the products were already off the market”, Judge White did not find that the “congratulatory e-mail, as a matter of law, establishes that Nuance was both aware of and acquiesced to ABBYY’s packaging, thereby entitling ABBBY to the defense of acquiescence or laches.”  As a result, he denied Abbyy’s motion for summary judgment on the trade dress claims.

With regard to the motions for summary judgment filed by both defendants regarding patent claims, Judge White found “that there remain questions of fact regarding each of the patent infringement claims which preclude the Court from granting either defendant ABBYY’s or Lexmark’s motions for summary judgment”, so those motions were also denied.

As for the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as part of discovery abuse sanctions resulting from the late production of relevant documents from Abbyy, while Abbyy claimed that the production due to “satisfaction of Nuance’s multiple other discovery requests seeking massive amounts of irrelevant information”, Judge White did not find the delay in production justified.  He also noted that Abbyy’s “late production required the extension of time for discovery and Nuance’s retaking of many depositions which had been completed prior to the original close of discovery”. Because of this, he ruled that “sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 are justified for the expense Nuance incurred in the retaking of otherwise-completed depositions once the Court re-opened discovery due to the late disclosures.”

As a result, Abbyy was ordered to pay $14,544.94 in costs and $120,068.57 in fees (a total of $134,613.51) within 30 days of the order to reimburse the plaintiff for the amount incurred “after the re-opening of discovery due to the late production”.

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions warranted?  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.

Changes to Federal eDiscovery Rules Are One Step Closer – eDiscovery Trends

In April, we referenced Henry Kelston’s report in Law Technology News that another major set of amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is getting closer and could be adopted within the year.  Now, the amendments are one step closer to enactment as they have been approved for public comment.

Henry Kelston reports again in Law Technology News (Proposed Discovery Amendments Move to Public Comment), noting that “With minimal discussion and no significant dissent, the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure voted on June 3 to approve for public comment the full slate of proposed amendments” that was previously approved by its Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

As we summarized previously, potential revisions that have impact to discovery include changes to Rules 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 37.  As Kelston reports, “The package also includes changes to Rule 1, adding language to the text to emphasize that the responsibility to use the rules in order ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action’ lies with the parties as well as the courts, and inserting comment language to encourage cooperation among parties in applying the rules.”

Apparently, Rule 1 was the only rule to receive votes against it as it received three dissenting votes.  Nonetheless, the proposed amendments were voted on as a package by the standing committee, who voted unanimously in favor of approving the package for publication.

After anticipated publication for public comment later this summer, the public comment period for proposed rules is expected to last six months.  Kelston reports that the “advisory committee, anticipating a high level of public interest in the proposals, plans to hold public hearings in several cities around the U.S.”, with the first hearing “expected to being held in November in Washington, D.C., to coincide with the advisory committee’s next scheduled meeting.”

We’ll keep you posted as the amendments progress.

So, what do you think?  Are you pleased or concerned with the proposed amendments?  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.

200,000 Visits on eDiscovery Daily! – eDiscovery Milestones

While we may be “just a bit behind” Google in popularity (900 million visits per month), we’re proud to announce that yesterday eDiscoveryDaily reached the 200,000 visit milestone!  It took us a little over 21 months to reach 100,000 visits and just over 11 months to get to 200,000 (don’t tell my boss, he’ll expect 300,000 in 5 1/2 months).  When we reach key milestones, we like to take a look back at some of the recent stories we’ve covered, so here are some recent eDiscovery items of interest.

EDRM Data Set “Controversy”: Including last Friday, we have covered the discussion related to the presence of personally-identifiable information (PII) data (including social security numbers, credit card numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers) within the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Enron Data Set and the “controversy” regarding the effort to clean it up (additional posts here and here).

Minnesota Implements Changes to eDiscovery Rules: States continue to be busy with changes to eDiscovery rules. One such state is Minnesota, which has amending its rules to emphasize proportionality, collaboration, and informality in the discovery process.

Changes to Federal eDiscovery Rules Could Be Coming Within a Year: Another major set of amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is getting closer and could be adopted within the year.  The United States Courts’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted in April to send a slate of proposed amendments up the rulemaking chain, to its Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, with a recommendation that the proposals be approved for publication and public comment later this year.

I Tell Ya, Information Governance Gets No Respect: A new report from 451 Research has indicated that “although lawyers are bullish about the prospects of information governance to reduce litigation risks, executives, and staff of small and midsize businesses, are bearish and ‘may not be placing a high priority’ on the legal and regulatory needs for litigation or government investigation.”

Is it Time to Ditch the Per Hour Model for Document Review?: Some of the recent stories involving alleged overbilling by law firms for legal work – much of it for document review – begs the question whether it’s time to ditch the per hour model for document review in place of a per document rate for review?

Fulbright’s Litigation Trends Survey Shows Increased Litigation, Mobile Device Collection: According to Fulbright’s 9th Annual Litigation Trends Survey released last month, companies in the United States and United Kingdom continue to deal with, and spend more on litigation.  From an eDiscovery standpoint, the survey showed an increase in requirements to preserve and collect data from employee mobile devices, a high reliance on self-preservation to fulfill preservation obligations and a decent percentage of organizations using technology assisted review.

We also covered Craig Ball’s Eight Tips to Quash the Cost of E-Discovery (here and here) and interviewed Adam Losey, the editor of IT-Lex.org (here and here).

Jane Gennarelli has continued her terrific series on Litigation 101 for eDiscovery Tech Professionals – 32 posts so far, here is the latest.

We’ve also had 15 posts about case law, just in the last 2 months (and 214 overall!).  Here is a link to our case law posts.

On behalf of everyone at CloudNine Discovery who has worked on the blog over the last 32+ months, thanks to all of you who read the blog every day!  In addition, thanks to the other publications that have picked up and either linked to or republished our posts!  We really appreciate the support!  Now, on to 300,000!

And, as always, 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.

Changes to Federal eDiscovery Rules Could Be Coming Within a Year – eDiscovery Trends

As reported by Henry Kelston in Law Technology News (Are We on the Cusp of Major Changes to E-Discovery Rules?), another major set of amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is getting closer and could be adopted within the year.  The United States Courts’ Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted last week to send a slate of proposed amendments up the rulemaking chain, to its Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, with a recommendation that the proposals be approved for publication and public comment later this year.

Potential Revisions that Have Impact to Discovery Include:

  • Rule 26: Changes incorporate a limitation to the general scope of discovery allowed by Rule 26(b)(1) as to what is proportional to the needs of the case, measured by the cost-benefit calculus now required by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) that is currently used most often when a party moves to limit discovery.
  • Rules 30 and 31: Changes reduce the number of depositions (oral and written) allowed per side, from 10 to 5, and reduce the time limit for each deposition, from 7 hours to 6 hours.
  • Rule 33: Changes reduce the number of interrogatories permitted, from 25 to 15.
  • Rule 34: Amendment requires that objections to document requests be stated with specificity and include a statement as to whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the objection.
  • Rule 36: Implements a new limit of 25 requests for admission for each party, with requests to admit the genuineness of documents expressly exempted from the limit of 25.
  • Rule 37: The proposed amendment in Rule 37(e) is intended to create a uniform national standard regarding the level of culpability required to justify severe sanctions for spoliation, establishing a non-sanction category of measures a court may impose when it finds that a party failed to meet its preservation obligation, such as allowing additional discovery, requiring a party to recreate or obtain the information it lost, or ordering a party to pay reasonable expenses resulting from the loss of information.  Rule 37(b)(2)(A) includes a “hotly debated” amendment that the court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction 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.

The proposed changes to Rule 37, in particular, appear to give producing parties more latitude when failing to meet their preservation obligation was not willful or in bad faith.  As the article notes, “if the standing committee approves the proposed amendments for publication at its meeting in early June, the amendments would be published for public comment soon thereafter. The public comment period for proposed rules normally lasts six months. The advisory committee, anticipating a high level of public interest in the proposals, plans to hold several days of public hearings in different cities around the U.S., with dates and locations yet to be announced.”

So, what do you think?  Are you pleased or concerned with the proposed amendments?  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.

Sedona Conference Updates Guide for Judges – eDiscovery Trends

Last year, The Sedona Conference® made a public comments version of the Cooperation Proclamation: Resources for the Judiciary available on the Sedona Conference website. The Resources for the Judiciary document aims to provide judges with a foundation for creating a collaborative and non-adversarial approach to managing eDiscovery.  Now, its Judicial Resources guide has been updated and the free version is available on the Sedona Conference web site.

In addition to a Preface that outlines the Vision, Mission and Goal for the Resources, the guide includes the following sections:

  • I. Introduction: Discusses the difference between “active case management” (proactive) and “discovery management” (reactive), while urging judges to take an active case management model approach;
  • II. Review of Existing Literature on E-Discovery for Judges: A compilation of various resources for judges to become more familiar with eDiscovery, including everything from the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules to local rules and pilot projects, such as the Model Order for Patent eDiscovery;
  • III. General Recommendations for Judges: A list of seven recommendations for how judges handle eDiscovery issues in their cases, along with supporting information and resources;
  • IV. The Stages of Litigation from a Judge’s Perspective: Sections for twenty different stages, ranging from Preservation to Post-Judgment Costs.

Creation of the new edition was led by senior editors Ronald Hedges (a retired magistrate judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, now a consultant) and Kenneth Withers (Sedona’s director of judicial education) with Karen Van Allen serving as editorial coordinator.  Judicial Reviewers were:

  • Hon. Ralph Artigliere, 10th Judicial Circuit Court, Florida (ret.)
  • Hon. John M. Facciola, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of the District of Columbia
  • Hon. Peter Flynn, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
  • Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte, U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of California
  • Hon. Elizabeth M. Schwabedissen, General Magistrate, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Florida
  • Hon. Craig B. Shaffer, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Colorado

Apparently, the web site will also have a special password-protected collaboration area exclusively for judges to comment, suggest resources or even submit sample orders, enabling those judges to freely communicate without concern about eavesdropping from outside parties.  And, as always, 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.

So, what do you think?  Will this guide make for a smoother discovery process?  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.

Russell Taber: eDiscovery in Tennessee – eDiscovery Trends

We spend a lot of time discussing and referencing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially the changes adopted in 2006 to address handling of electronically stored information (ESI).  But, not all cases are Federal jurisdiction cases.  Many are state cases and each state (well, most of them anyway) have their own rules regarding eDiscovery.  One of those states is Tennessee.  Now, for those who practice law in Tennessee and need to address eDiscovery issues, there is a new book available to provide guidance in addressing those issues.

Electronic Discovery in Tennessee: Rules, Case Law and Distinctions was written by W. Russell Taber III.  Russell is an attorney with Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, in Nashville, Tennessee.  His practice focuses on business litigation.  He is a member of The Sedona Conference® Working Group 1 and is a founding member of The Prometheus Project (The Nashville Chapter of Friends of EDiscovery).  Russell has a J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School and a B.A. from Georgetown University.  I recently interviewed Russell regarding the book and asked him several questions about the book and about eDiscovery in Tennessee in general.

Why did you decide to write the book and what are you hoping for readers to learn from reading it?

First of all, thank you for the eDiscovery Daily Blog.  I’ve been a subscriber for some time and have benefitted from its insights.  Thank you also for taking the time for this interview.

I wrote the book as a resource for Tennessee attorneys and legal professionals to use in confronting eDiscovery issues.  It begins with the premise: “The era of paper discovery in Tennessee is over.”  Though perhaps an unimaginative allusion to a famous political line during an election year, I believe the statement is true.   Virtually all information is created electronically.  EDiscovery simply cannot be ignored in Tennessee state or Federal cases, large or small.  Even so, eDiscovery can be very challenging, and the stakes can be high.  Since the most widely discussed cases in the field and at CLE’s often stem from large metropolitan centers in other states, it has been an open question whether that law does or should apply in Tennessee.   Before my book, there was no comprehensive resource that sought to address this issue, which I think is an important consideration in much Tennessee litigation.

As I understand it, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to address discovery of ESI in 2009?  How do the Tennessee rules compare and contrast to the Federal Rules adopted in 2006?

That’s right.   The 2009 amendments to the Tennessee Rules were patterned largely after the “new” 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules but differ in some respects.   For instance, unlike the Federal Rules, the Tennessee Rules do not have a “meet and confer” requirement but do encourage parties to meet and confer if ESI is likely to be at issue.  The verdict is still out on what impact this distinction has in practice and on how parties cooperate on eDiscovery.

Another distinction is a rule that compliments the Tennessee state equivalent of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and perhaps places additional emphasis on proportionality in Tennessee state court.  Under the Tennessee rule, a judge first determines whether the ESI is subject to production.  If so, the judge then weighs the benefits to the requesting party against the burden and expense of the discovery for the responding party, considering thirteen non-exclusive factors.

Are there a couple of notable Tennessee cases that you can mention that were impacted by the Tennessee rules or by eDiscovery in general?

Yes.  While the degree of culpability that should be required to impose spoliation sanctions has been debated nationally, Tennessee state courts generally have not awarded spoliation sanctions absent destruction of evidence for an improper purpose.  In Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Abebe, the Tennessee Court of Appeals applied this general rule in declining to impose sanctions for a party’s destruction of original documentation pursuant to its document retention practices.

Another notable case is CNX Gas Co., LLC v. Miller Petroleum, Inc.  The Tennessee Court of Appeals shifted all the costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting, reviewing and producing certain ESI to the requesting party.  The court reasoned that the requests for production, which sought ESI “with metadata,” posed an “undue burden and hardship” on the responding party.

Are there any plans to amend Tennessee rules for eDiscovery in the near future?  What do you expect to see in the eDiscovery landscape within the state over the next few years?

I’m not aware of any plans to amend the Tennessee rules for eDiscovery.  A practitioner in Tennessee can be subject to four different sets of eDiscovery rules depending on whether the case is pending in Tennessee state court or in one of the three Federal judicial districts (two of which have somewhat differing local default eDiscovery rules).  I think there is a need for more uniformity in the eDiscovery rules in Tennessee.

We recently started a local eDiscovery group in Nashville (called The Prometheus Project) that is affiliated with Friends of eDiscovery.  Our initial meeting last month generated quite a bit of enthusiasm and attracted over 40 attendees.  These local groups seem to be emerging throughout the country, and I’m hopeful this trend will spread to other cities in Tennessee.

For more information about the book, including the link on Amazon.com to purchase it, click here.

Thanks, Russell, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, 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.

Proportionality Rules! (and other proportionality sources) – eDiscovery Best Practices

I found this nice summary of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other sources that address proportionality and cooperation in eDiscovery from the Baker Hostetler blog, Discovery Advocate, written by Gil Keteltas entitled Advocating Proportionality? Start with the Rules!  Here are the highlights.

As the author notes, Rules 1, 26 and 37 each provide verbiage addressing proportionality, as follows:

  • Rule 1 states that the rules “should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
  • In Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, a party must describe  by category and location all electronically stored information in the party’s possession, custody or control  “that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.”
  • Rule 26(f) mandates that the parties confer and discuss “any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan” that indicates the “parties’ views and proposals” concerning, inter alia, issues relating to the disclosure or discovery of ESI, form of production and assertions of privilege.
  • Rule 26(g) requires certification, based on a reasonable inquiry, that Rule 26(a) disclosures were complete and that discovery requests, responses and objections are proper, necessary and reasonable given the law, nature and stage of the case.
  • Rule 37(f) authorizes sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, including for failing “to participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f).”

The author also recommends two publications from the The Sedona Conference®: Its Cooperation Proclamation and its Commentary on Proportionality (previously covered on this blog here and here), as well as this proportionality test white paper from the American Bar Association.  If you want case law dealing with proportionality, take a look here, here, here, here and here.  And, that’s just this year!

With 90% of the data in the world having been created in the last two years, managing eDiscovery of all that data continues to get more and more expensive.  Key to keeping those costs in check is the ability to promote proportionality, especially through the Rule 26(f) meet and confer with opposing counsel, and with the court (especially when the parties can’t agree on conducting eDiscovery more cost effectively).  The sources listed in this article provide excellent ammunition to advocate proportionality in eDiscovery with opposing counsel as well as with the court.

So, what do you think?  Have you disputed eDiscovery scope with opposing counsel in your cases?   If so, how have you addressed those disputes?  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.

eDiscovery Daily is Two Years Old Today!
 

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years ago today since we launched the eDiscoveryDaily blog.  Now that we’ve hit the “terrible twos”, is the blog going to start going off on rants about various eDiscovery topics, like Will McAvoy in The Newsroom?   Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Wouldn’t that be fun!

As we noted when recently acknowledging our 500th post, we have seen traffic on our site (from our first three months of existence to our most recent three months) grow an amazing 442%!  Our subscriber base has nearly doubled in the last year alone!  We now have nearly seven times the visitors to the site as we did when we first started.  We continue to appreciate the interest you’ve shown in the topics and will do our best to continue to provide interesting and useful eDiscovery news and analysis.  That’s what this blog is all about.  And, in each post, we like to ask for you to “please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic”, so we encourage you to do so to make this blog even more useful.

We also want to thank the blogs and publications that have linked to our posts and raised our public awareness, including Pinhawk, The Electronic Discovery Reading Room, Unfiltered Orange, Litigation Support Blog.com, Litigation Support Technology & News, Ride the Lightning, InfoGovernance Engagement Area, Learn About E-Discovery, Alltop, Law.com, Justia Blawg Search, Atkinson-Baker (depo.com), ABA Journal, Complex Discovery, Next Generation eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog and any other publication that has picked up at least one of our posts for reference (sorry if I missed any!).  We really appreciate it!

We like to take a look back every six months at some of the important stories and topics during that time.  So, here are some posts over the last six months you may have missed.  Enjoy!

We talked about best practices for issuing litigation holds and how issuing the litigation hold is just the beginning.

By the way, did you know that if you deleted a photo on Facebook three years ago, it may still be online?

We discussed states (Delaware, Pennsylvania and Florida) that have implemented new rules for eDiscovery in the past few months.

We talked about how to achieve success as a non-attorney in a law firm, providing quality eDiscovery services to your internal “clients” and how to be an eDiscovery consultant, and not just an order taker, for your clients.

We warned you that stop words can stop your searches from being effective, talked about how important it is to test your searches before the meet and confer and discussed the importance of the first 7 to 10 days once litigation hits in addressing eDiscovery issues.

We told you that, sometimes, you may need to collect from custodians that aren’t there, differentiated between quality assurance and quality control and discussed the importance of making sure that file counts add up to what was collected (with an example, no less).

By the way, did you know the number of pages in a gigabyte can vary widely and the same exact content in different file formats can vary by as much as 16 to 20 times in size?

We provided a book review on Zubulake’s e-Discovery and then interviewed the author, Laura Zubulake, as well.

BTW, eDiscovery Daily has had 150 posts related to eDiscovery Case Law since the blog began.  Fifty of them have been in the last six months.

P.S. – We still haven't missed a business day yet without a post.  Yes, we are crazy.

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.