March 16, 2009 – Electronic Discovery Law

American College of Trial Lawyers Releases Final Report Addressing Discovery and Issues Impacting Discovery, Encourages Public Comment and Debate

Mar 16 2009

On March 11, 2009, the American College of Trial Lawyers released its report on discovery and issues impacting discovery. The report is the final product of a joint project between members of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. The project was “conceived as an outgrowth of increasing concerns that problems in the civil justice system, especially those relating to discovery, have resulted in unacceptable delays and prohibitive expense.” The goal of project was to provide Proposed Principles that would “ultimately result in a civil justice system that better serves the needs of its users.”

The Final Report identifies problems in several areas including pleadings, discovery, experts, and dispositive motions and provides Proposed Principles intended to address and resolve those problems. The report’s discussion of discovery includes several Proposed Principles directly addressing the perceived problems in electronic discovery. Among those Proposed Principles are:

Court Imposes Sanctions on Plaintiff and Counsel, Orders Plaintiff to Provide Access to Database and for Attorney and his Law Firm to Pay Defendant’s Costs, Fees, and Expenses

Mar 16 2009

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 546429 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2009)

This case arises from an insurance dispute following damage to Bray & Gillespie’s (“B&G”) resort properties from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. B&G was represented by Anderson, Kill & Olick, P.C. (“AKO”) in connection with the submission of insurance claims for the damage. B&G, with the assistance of AKO, gathered documents, including electronically stored information (“ESI”) to support those claims. Relevant ESI was downloaded in its native format, scanned, and loaded to a hard drive (“Target Hard Drive”). The ESI was then converted to TIFF images using a program called Extractiva, which also captured the metadata from the ESI. Those images and metadata were then uploaded into the Introspect database and the Target Hard Drive was put in storage. AKO provided copies of the information to Lexington, in paper form and on discs, in support of B&G’s insurance claims. Coverage could not be agreed upon, and on February 13, 2007, B&G filed suit.

Archive - March 16, 2009