Electronic Discovery Law Firm : K&L Gates : Electronic Discovery Law

The U.S. International Trade Commission has adopted “final rules related to its e-discovery practices.”  “The new rules will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and are applicable to investigations instituted 30 days after publication in the Federal Register”—a Federal Register notice was issued on May 15, 2013.

The newly adopted rules address issues including the discovery of inaccessible information and limitations to discovery similar to those found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).  The newly adopted rules also add new provisions addressing privileged information and work product, including requiring the production of privilege logs and providing procedures for addressing the inadvertent production of privileged materials.

For more information, visit the Commission’s website, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what is possibly the final chapter to last year's Da Silva Moore predictive coding saga, the Second Circuit has denied Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck.  For those unfamiliar with the issues in this case, copies of the underlying decisions from both Magistrate Judge Peck and District Court Judge Carter are available here and here.  While a copy of the Second Circuit's denial is available below, the full text of the order states:

Petitioners, through counsel, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the recusal of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.  Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioners have not “clearly and indisputably demonstrate[d] that [Magistrate Judge Peck] abused [his] discretion” in denying their district court recusal motion, In re Basciano, 542 F. 3d 950, 956 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (2d Cir. 1988)), or that the district court erred in overruling their objection to that decision.

A copy of the court's order is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In January, The Sedona Conference® made available the "post-public comment" version of its Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, first published in 2010.  The publication is available for download, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota adopted amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, including those affecting discovery.  Of particular note were amendments to Rules 1 and 26.  Specifically (and significantly), Rule 1 was amended to state that it is the responsibility of the parties and the court to assure proportionality throughout the litigation.  Accordingly, Rule 1 now states (new language is underlined):

These rules govern the procedure in the district courts of the State of Minnesota in all suits of a civil nature, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81.  They shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

It is the responsibility of the court and the parties to examine each civil action to assure that the process and the costs are proportionate to the amount in controversy and the complexity and importance of the issues.  The factors to be considered by the court in making a proportionality assessment include, without limitation: needs of the case, amount in controversy, parties’ resources, and complexity and importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 1, 2012, newly amended rules went into effect in the Western District of Washington, including rules addressing electronic discovery.  Notably, the new rules now require that parties contemplating discovery of electronically stored information consider adopting the newly promulgated Model Agreement Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Litigation—a fairly comprehensive order addressing many aspects of electronic discovery.  Many other amendments were also adopted.

For a full copy of the newly adopted rules, click here.

For a copy of the new Model Agreement, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Effective January 1, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery has amended its rules “to account for modern discovery demands” and has “expanded its Guidelines for Practitioners,” originally released in January 2012.  The Court’s press release summarizes the changes:

The Court of Chancery will amend its Rules regarding discovery, effective January 1, 2013.  Rules 26, 30, 34 and 45 will be updated to account for modern discovery demands and will bring the Court’s rules in line with current practice.  The amendments refer to discovery of “electronically stored information” (“ESI”) in addition to “documents” and “tangible things,” and explain how parties should respond to requests for ESI.  These changes are consistent with similar amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 26(c) also was revised to make clear that an out-of-state non-party from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in this state.

In addition to amendments to the Rules, the Court also has expanded its Guidelines for Practitioners, originally released in January 2012, to include guidelines regarding discovery.  These guidelines explain the Court’s expectations regarding parties’ responsibility to confer early and often regarding discovery, including about electronic discovery procedures, the overall scope of discovery, preferred procedures for collection and review of discoverable material, including ESI, the privilege assertion process, and the role of Delaware counsel in the discovery process.  The Court also developed guidelines for expedited discovery in advance of a preliminary injunction hearing.  These new guidelines encourage communication among counsel and are intended to assist the Bar in developing reliable and transparent procedures for electronic discovery.  The Court and its Rules Committee are hopeful that use of these guidelines will help avoid unnecessary and expensive disputes regarding the discovery process.

To read the full press release, or to access the new rules and guidelines, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On November 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Illinois entered an order adopting new Rule of Evidence 502 Attorney Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver and a second order amending Rule 201 General Discovery Provisions.  The newly adopted rules address the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information and closely follow the Federal Rules addressing the same (FRE 502 & FRCP 26(b)(5)(B)).  The rules will be effective January 1, 2013.

A copy of the order adopting new Rule 502 is available here.

A copy of the order adopting the amendment to Rule 201 (and others) is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This month, the Sedona Conference® published a public comment version of its latest paper, The Sedona Conference® Primer on Social Media.  The primer, a somewhat different publication than prior commentaries, is described in its Preface as follows:

Unlike many of previous publications in this series, this is not entitled a “Commentary,” nor does it present any formal “Principles,” although it contains plenty of practical guidance for attorneys, judges, and parties.  This is called a “Primer” because the goal is to provide primary instruction to the bar and bench in the basics of social media and the law, from definitions, to the use of social media in business, to the discovery of social media in litigation, to professional responsibilities lawyers have in relation to their own use of social media.  This is a fast-developing and fast-changing area of technical, social, and legal development, and any consensus-based Commentary or set of Principles that claims to advance the law in this area may be doomed to obsolescence as soon as it is announced on Twitter.  However, we hope that this Primer represents a positive first step in grounding the dialogue leading to consensus on moving the law forward in the reasoned and just way.

This publication is available for download from The Sedona Conference®, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 4, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted amendments to the New Jersey Rules Governing Criminal Practice and to the Rules Governing Practice in the Municipal Courts.  The amendments were initially recommended by the Supreme Court Special Committee on Discovery in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Matters.  The amendments are effective on January 1, 2013.

Among other things, the amendments to the Rules of Criminal Practice address a newly imposed obligation to meet and confer on the issue of electronic discovery (Rule 3:9-1(b)); the discoverability of electronically stored information generally (e.g., by specifically identifying such information as discoverable under the rules), including the format of production (Rule 3:13-3); and discovery fees (Rule 3:13-5).  Similarly, the amendments to the Rules of Practice in the Municipal Courts address (among other things) the discoverability of electronically stored information generally, including the format of production and discovery fees (Rule 7:7-7).

For a copy of the Notice to the Bar, including the Court’s Order, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California announced "new Guidelines for counsel and litigants regarding the discovery of electronically stored information ("ESI")."

According to the Court’s announcement:

The Guidelines are designed to establish best practices for evidence preservation in the digital age and to ensure that local practices regarding the discovery of ESI keep pace with rapidly evolving technology and to be flexible enough to be used in a wide variety of cases.  According to Judge Laporte:  “These tools are designed to promote cooperative e-discovery planning as soon as practicable that is tailored and proportionate to the needs of the particular case to achieve its just, speedy and inexpensive resolution, consistent with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The package of new ESI-related documents comprises:

• Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information;
• ESI checklist for use during the Rule 26(f) meet and confer process;
• Model Stipulated Order Re: the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.
 

To read the full text of the announcement, click here.
To access the new guidelines and related documents, click here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2012)

On November 8th, District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. filed his long awaited decision in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck.  In his short and to the point opinion, Judge Carter concluded that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review, reached upon consideration of the applicable law, was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.”  The court further found that “Magistrate Judge Peck’s conduct falls within proper bounds of judicial conduct” and that “[h]is denial of Plaintiffs’ recusal motion is consistent with the interests of judicial economy and the administration of justice.”

A full copy of the order is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Katie Taylor, K&L Gates

SaaS, PaaS and data hosting providers stress the significant efficiencies to be gained from cloud computing when marketing their services.  Depending on the cloud computing system you are considering, however, a number of features may have a significant impact on your company’s ability to comply with electronic discovery obligations should it be sued or subpoenaed.

To read the entire article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As announced in today’s edition of the Federal Register, the International Trade Commission has proposed to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure to address “concerns that have arisen about the scope of discovery in Commission proceedings under section 337 of the Tarrif Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”).”  “The intended effect of the proposed amendments is to reduce expensive, inefficient, unjustified, or unnecessary discovery practices in agency proceedings while preserving the opportunity for fair and efficient discovery for all parties.”  To that end, the proposed amendments address issues including the discovery of inaccessible information and limitations to discovery similar to those currently contemplated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).  The proposed amendments also seek to add new provisions addressing privileged information and work product, including by requiring the production of privilege logs and by providing procedures for addressing the inadvertent production of privileged materials.

For more information on the proposed amendments, click here to be taken to today’s edition of the Federal Register.  Please note too, the Commission invites public comment on its proposals due no later than 5:15 PM on December 4, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it has issued “final changes to agency procedure that will streamline the FTC’s investigatory process, make updates to keep pace with electronic evidence discovery, and provide more detail on how the agency evaluates allegations of misconduct by attorneys practicing before the Commission.”  Among the changes highlighted in the agency’s announcement is a new requirement that parties "meet and confer with FTC staff within 14 days (with certain exceptions) to resolve electronic discovery issues relating to subpoenas and civil investigative demands (CIDs), as well as any other issues” and a change which will relieve “parties of their obligations to preserve documents related to an FTC investigation after a year passes with no written communication from Commission staff.”  Other changes include, among other things, express references to electronically stored information throughout the rules and specific amendments addressing “the manner and form of production of ESI” (§2.7(j)) and inadvertent production and waiver (§2.11(d)).  The rules become effective on November 9, 2012.

To read the agency’s press release, which includes a link to the adopted amendments, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

People v. Harris, No. 2011NY080152 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2012)

As was previously discussed on this blog (here, here, and here), Twitter, Inc. was recently ordered by New York Judge Matthew Sciarrino to produce both “content” and “non-content” information (including the text of Tweets) associated with the account of criminal defendant Malcolm Harris.  Mr. Harris and others were arrested during an “Occupy Wall Street” protest after marching onto the Brooklyn Bridge.  Thereafter, the District Attorney sent a subpoena to Twitter seeking Mr. Harris’ user information and Tweets in an apparent effort to disprove his claims that he and other protesters were led onto the roadway by the police.  Initially, Mr. Harris sought to quash the subpoena, but his motion was denied by the court for lack of standing—the court found that he had no proprietary interest in the information sought and that his claimed privacy interest was “understandable” but “without merit.”  Twitter then sought to quash the subpoena itself, but that motion was also denied.  Twitter had argued that Mr. Harris (like all Twitter users) had standing to quash the subpoena and that the court’s decision to deny that standing placed an undue burden on Twitter where it would be forced to either respond to all subpoenas or to vindicate its users’ rights by moving to quash.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 16, 2012, Defendant MSLGroup filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 72(A) Objection to Magistrate Judge Peck's June 15, 2012 Opinion and Order (which denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal or Disqualification).  The memorandum is available here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

K&L Gates partner Julie Anne Halter was featured on a Q&A panel of litigators discussing e-disclosure as a transformative tool in litigation.  Panelists were asked:

With technology changing constantly, how can lawyers best use e-disclosure to help their clients through the litigation process?  Four experts debate some of the hot topics in this area.

Read their debate

First published by The Lawyer on July 16, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 5, 2012, the Supreme Court of Florida adopted amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to address the discovery of electronically stored information.  The amendments will become effective September 1, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.

The amendments will affect seven rules of civil procedure: “1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena).”

The court’s order, available below, provides both a short discussion of the relevant changes and the text of the new rules as adopted, including committee notes which, although not adopted as an official part of the rules, do provide valuable insight into their meaning and intended use.

A copy of the court’s order adopting the amendments is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 29, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Rule 72(A) objection to Magistrate Judge Peck's denial of their Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  Plaintiffs' brief is available below.  (Plaintiffs' declaration in support of their brief is over 500 pages long and is available on PACER  at http://www.pacer.gov/.)

• Plaintiffs' Rule 72(A) Objection to the Magistrate's June 15, 2012 Opinion and Order

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Western District of Washington has published on its website proposed amendments to the Local Civil Rules, including the addition of language that specifically addresses the discovery of electronically stored information.  The court has also published a proposed Model Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Civil Litigation, which was “developed in partnership with the Federal Bar Association” and which parties could choose to adopt or modify for use in their case.

To access the proposed amendments and/or Model Protocol, click here.  Comments are encouraged and may be sent vial email to localrules@wawd.uscourts.gov.  Comments must be received no later than 5 PM on September 28, 2012.  Approved changes to the local rules will go into effect on December 1, 2012.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 In the latest edition of K&L Gates’ Arbitration World Julie Anne Halter, a Partner in K&L Gates' e-Discovery Analysis and Technology Group (e-DAT), and William Zoellner, an e-DAT Staff Lawyer, discuss the value of Early Case Assessment in arbitration.

From the Editors

Welcome to the 19th edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates' Arbitration Group that highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

We hope you find this edition of Arbitration World of interest, and we welcome any feedback (email ian.meredith@klgates.com or peter.morton@klgates.com).

Early Case Assessment: A Litigation Arrow in an Arbitration Quiver

There is no question that dispute resolution procedures that are designed to be more efficient and less costly than traditional litigation, such as arbitration, can still be prohibitively expensive in some cases.  To deal with this issue there are a number of highly effective processes and tools, many developed in the context of large scale litigation, that can provide significant strategic advantage and cost savings to clients in arbitration, mediation and other dispute resolution procedures.

To access the full newsletter, including the rest of the article Early Case Assessment: A Litigation Arrow in an Arbitration Quiver, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck has denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  The 56-page opinion was filed on Friday, and is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Phase Two of the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program ended in May and the Final Report on that phase has now been issued.  According to that report, much was accomplished during Phase Two, including the creation of several subcommittees such as the Criminal Discovery Subcommittee, dedicated to developing “resources to educate criminal practitioners about the use of electronic discovery,” and the Technology Subcommittee, which was “formed … to keep up with rapidly evolving technology and to further advance the bench’s and bar’s understanding and use of new technology in the electronic record retention and discovery field.”  A Web Site Subcommittee was also formed which was responsible for the creation of www.DiscoveryPilot.com, a valuable informational resource on the Pilot Program and related topics.  Phase Two also included a survey about the Pilot Program and its Principles, the results of which are shared in the Final Report.  Notably, according to the report’s Executive Summary, “[b]oth the Phase One and Phase Two surveys’ results show that in those cases in which the Principles had a perceived effect, those effects were overwhelmingly positive with respect to assisting attorneys’ cooperation and enhancing their ability to resolve disputes amicably, their ability to obtain relevant documents, and their ability to zealously represent their clients, as well as providing fairness to the process.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, Pennsylvania became the most recent state to amend its civil rules to address the discovery of electronically stored information.  Unlike many other states, however, Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee has made clear in its explanatory comment that despite the adoption of the term “electronically stored information,” “there is no intent to incorporate federal jurisprudence surrounding the discovery of electronically stored information.”  Instead, “[t]he treatment of such issues is to be determined by traditional principles of proportionality under Pennsylvania law . . . .”  The comment goes on to more fully discuss the “Proportionality Standard” and its application to electronic discovery, as well as “Tools for Addressing Electronically Stored Information,” including, for example, “sampling, cost sharing and non-waiver agreements.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 4, 2012, Defendant MSLGroup filed its opposition to Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Peck's May 7, 2012 discovery rulings.  A full copy of the response is available here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 21, Plaintiffs filed Rule 72(a) objections to Magistrate Judge Peck’s May 7, 2012 discovery rulings related to the relevance of certain documents that comprise the seed set of the parties’ ESI protocol.  Plaintiffs’ brief and supporting declaration are available below:

• Plaintiffs’ Rule 72(a) Objection to the Magistrate’s May 7, 2012 Discovery Ruling
• Declaration of Siham Nurhussein in Support of Plaintiffs’ Rule 72(a) Objection to the Magistrate’s May 7, 2012 Discovery Rulings

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In March, the American Bar Association’s Electronic Discovery [ESI] in Bankruptcy Working Group issued its Interim Report on Electronic Discovery Issues in Bankruptcy Cases.  The Working Group “was formed to study and prepare guidelines or a best practices report on the scope and timing of a party’s obligation to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) in bankruptcy cases” and has prepared preliminary guidelines in three bankruptcy-related subject areas: “(i) large Chapter 11 cases; (ii) middle market and smaller Chapter 11 cases; and (iii) Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases.”  Those preliminary guidelines are appended to the Interim Report, which was issued to “invite and stimulate comments from a wider audience.”  Thus, readers are encouraged to review the report, available here, and to submit comments to the Working Group using the contact information provided.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In April 2009, Chief Justice Rabner of the Supreme Court of New Jersey appointed the Supreme Court Special Committee on Discovery in Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Matters (hereinafter the Committee).  The Committee “was appointed to recommend solutions to a variety of issues that had arisen as the result of the increasing use of electronically stored information in criminal cases.”  After significant investigation, the Committee has recently reported its recommendations, which include both proposed amendments to several rules as well as “non-rule recommendations.”

Issues identified for serious consideration by the Committee included many that are familiar to practitioners on the “civil side,” such as problems with incompatibility between the format of production and the equipment/software available to defense counsel, discovery related costs, and discovery-related delays as well as problems that are unique to criminal cases, including issues related to attorney-client visitation in county jails, for example.  With so many issues to consider, the resulting report and recommendations are significant and too sweeping to succinctly summarize.  For those who want to learn more, however, a copy of the full report is available here.

Additionally, for those who are interested, comments on the proposals are invited; the deadline for submission is June 4. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems every day brings something new in this case.  Today we report that on Monday, May 14, Magistrate Judge Peck entered an order staying MSL’s production of ESI, “pending Judge Carter’s decision on plaintiffs’ motions for collective action certification and to amend their complaint.”  That order is available here.

Also of interest, on Tuesday, May 15, Magistrate Judge Peck denied a motion from Richard E. Flamm, Esq. to file an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  The motion, the underlying amicus brief, and the court’s order are available below:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for recusal or disqualification. Those pleadings are available below.

• Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification

• Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In March, The Sedona Conference® released a public comment version of its latest publication: Commentary on Ethics & Metadata.  The commentary is the first “to move beyond [Working Group 1’s] previously exclusive focus on aspects of discovery or records management/preservation” and focuses on ethical obligations surrounding metadata in both the discovery and non-discovery context.

The commentary is available for download from The Sedona Conference®, here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.)

On Monday, Defendant MSL Group Americas, Inc. filed its response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification.  Those pleadings are available below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Friday April 13, 2012, Plaintiffs in this matter filed a formal motion for recusal or disqualification, following up on their prior, informal request for the same.

• A copy of the Notice of Motion for Recusal or Disqualification is available here.
• A copy of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification is available here.
• A copy of the Declaration of Steven L. Wittels in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal or Disqualification (without exhibits attached) is available here.  Exhibits are available on PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Monday, Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck issued an order in response to Plaintiffs’ request for his recusal, which, according to Judge Peck, was contained in a letter dated March 28, 2012 (and is not publicly available at this time).

A copy of the order is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, No. 11 Civ. 1279 (ALC) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y.)

As expected, on March 19, 2012, plaintiffs in this case filed their Reply in Support of Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge Peck’s February 8, 2012 Discovery Rulings.  In it, plaintiffs summarize their arguments as follows:

Extrajudicial activities aside, what should matter is whether MSL’s Method will ensure that MSL fulfills its obligations under Rule 26 to produce reasonable discovery.  Here, the answer is a resounding no.  Judge Peck’s adoption of MSL’s Method was contrary to law and/or clearly erroneous for two main reasons.  First, Judge Peck adopted MSL’s Method on an insufficient record; Judge Peck failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or obtain expert testimony as to its reliability and accuracy.  Second, MSL’s Method fails to meet basic standards for reliability; the protocol risks failing to capture up to 65% of the documents material to Plaintiffs’ case.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reverse Judge Peck’s ESI rulings.

In support of their position, plaintiffs also filed declarations from their attorney, Siham Nurhussein, and their expert in this case, Paul J. Neale.  All that remains now is for District Court Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. to issue his ruling, which will be reported on this blog when it becomes available.

For a copy of Plaintiffs' Reply, click here.
For a copy of the Declaration of Siham Nurhussein, click here.
For a copy of the Declaration of Paul J. Neale, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Signed by Chief District Judge Leonard Davis on February 27, 2012, amendments to the Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas include a [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases similar to an order adopted by the Federal Circuit late last year.  The new [Model] Order is different in several respects, however.  The treatment of email, for example, differs in several important ways, including that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of custodians is raised from five to eight, that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of search terms is raised from five to ten, and that the court may consider requests for additional or fewer custodians without limitation.  The [Model] Order in the Eastern District of Texas also includes instruction on the production of ESI, including, for example, requiring production in TIFF format and specifying that no party has an obligation to make its production text-searchable unless it already exists in that form or is being converted for use in the litigation, including for use by the producing party’s counsel.  Unlike in the Federal Circuit, the [Model] Order in the Eastern District also limits a party’s obligation to restore backup media absent a showing of good cause and likewise precludes the obligation to collect and preserve voicemails, PDAs, and mobile phones (deemed “not reasonably accessible”) absent the same showing. 

Although the rules are effective immediately, comments regarding the amendments will be accepted by the Clerk of Court until Friday, March 23, 2012.

A copy of the General Order Amending Local Rules is available here.

A redline/strikeout of the [Model] Order (identifying the differences between it and the Federal Circuit’s [Model] Order) is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This month, the Joint Electronic Technology Working Group (JETWG) revealed its “Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases,” which are intended “to promote the efficient and cost-effective post-indictment production of electronically stored information (ESI) in discovery between the Government and defendants charged in federal criminal cases, and to reduce unnecessary conflict and litigation over ESI discovery by encouraging the parties to communicate about ESI discovery issues, by creating a predictable framework for ESI discovery, and by establishing methods for resolving ESI discovery disputes without the need for court intervention.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It was great to hear the Electronic Discovery Law blog receiving high praise in the most recent Digital Detectives podcast!  In particular, our thanks go out to Neil Squillante, publisher of LitigationWorld, who was the guest of Sharon D. Nelson and John W. Simek this month .  The podcast was called “The Best Resources for Staying Current in E-Discovery” and when the topic turned to blogs, Mr. Squillante had this to say:

If you're gonna just read one blog because you don't have time, it should probably be the Electronic Discovery Law blog published by K&L Gates, a law firm.  They cover the most important appellate opinions in the ediscovery space so it's a good way to keep up with what's going on, especially issues that scare lawyers like spoliation, sanctions, and so forth.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Thomas J. Smith and Matthew S. Collins, K&L Gates
The Legal Intelligencer, February 9, 2012

The extraordinary cost of e-discovery is well documented.  The amount of ESI that we generate is exploding and the use and prevalence of technology, its ease of access, and the relatively low cost mean that trend will continue.  Clients are becoming increasingly sensitive to and concerned about these increasing costs, and the ongoing economic malaise has only exacerbated the problem and hastened clients' efforts to control such costs.  In doing so, parties are looking beyond macro controls such as the number of custodians, the nature of collections (full v. targeted), and filtering techniques (date limitations, keyword terms), and now look at micro controls, including the parsing of document families at a component level.  A key question, therefore, becomes: If one part of a multi-component document is relevant, should all nonprivileged parts of that document also be produced?

To read the entire article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

By Robyn Weisman & Monica Bay
Law Technology News, January 30, 2012

Today's top law firms and their corporate clients are struggling to find the right combination of people, processes, technology — and facilities — to effectively control the quality and costs of electronic data discovery.  The risks are acutely visible for those who stumble: not just court-ordered sanctions, but lost data, cases, clients, profits, and reputations.  So how can major firms speed up the processes, hire the right personnel, meet ethical obligations to protect client confidentiality, cooperate with opposing counsel, maintain proportionality (i.e., not spend more on EDD than appropriate for the potential exposure of a case) — yet quickly find and process appropriate data?  There's no "one size fits all" single answer, but four models seem to be developing as loose frames:

To read the entire article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 12, 2012, the D.C. Court of Appeals Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL Committee”) approved Opinion 21-12 addressing the applicability of D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49 to “‘discovery services companies’—companies that state they offer comprehensive discovery services, including assistance with large scale document review, to legal services organizations.”  Rule 49 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law.  The Opinion specifically recognizes that in recent years such companies have “dramatically expanded the scope of their services” and have “begun to describe their services in increasingly broad language.”  Accordingly, the UPL Committee, through Opinion 21-12, sought to clarify the proper scope of services that such companies may offer and how those services may be represented to potential clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Effective yesterday, the District of Delaware has adopted revised default standards for discovery, including electronic discovery.  The standards cover a broad range of e-discovery issues from cooperation and proportionality to preservation, privilege, and format of production, among others.  Clearly intended to provide more than just general guidance to parties before the court, the default standards are quite specific (e.g, identification of categories of ESI not presumptively subject to preservation and mandated formats for production) and parties are therefore advised to carefully consult the guidelines when practicing in the District of Delaware.

A copy of the guidelines is available for download here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Southern District of New York has implemented a new Pilot Program for Complex Cases which became effective on November 1, 2011.  The program was implemented in “response to the federal bar’s concerns about the high costs of litigating complex civil cases,” and is “designed to improve judicial case management of these disputes and reduce costs and delay.”  More specifically, “the rules are intended to shorten the timeline for certain actions, reduce motion practice, and flag issues requiring judicial intervention at an earlier stage in the litigation process.”  Fourteen types of civil lawsuits are designated as “complex cases,” including “stockholder’s suits, patent and trademark claims, product liability disputes, multi-district litigation, and class actions.”  District Court judges may also “remove a case from the pilot, or they can designate a case as complex” if it does not fall within the other, enumerated categories.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts issued a press release Tuesday announcing that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has established a Twitter feed to "increase online access to its rulings:" 

The specially designated site will provide instant notification of the online posting of most Supreme Court information, such as orders, new rules, opinions and concurring and dissenting statements written by the justices.  Anyone can sign-up to receive alerts from the Court’s Twitter page, which can be accessed at http://twitter.com/SupremeCtofPA.  “Follow Us On Twitter” links also will appear on the state court system’s Web site to take interested parties directly to the page.

To read the full press release, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During his speech at the E.D. Texas Judicial Conference on Tuesday, Chief Judge Randall R. Rader of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit introduced the new Model Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases.  Per Chief Judge Rader, the goal of the model order is to “streamline e-discovery, particularly email production, and require litigants to focus on the proper purpose of discovery—the gathering of material information—rather than on unlimited fishing expeditions.”

The model order, which contains 14 specific provisions, addresses a myriad of topics including cost shifting, metadata, and the treatment of privileged information (e.g., inadvertent production does not result in waiver).  As indicated, however, the majority of the provisions address the discovery of email.  For example, the model order provides that “[g]eneral ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively ‘email’)” and that “[t]o obtain email, parties must propound specific email production requests.”  Moreover, those requests “shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than general discovery of a product or business.”  The model order further provides that email production “shall be phased to occur after the parties have exchanged initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused instrumentalities, and the relevant finances.”  Also within the model order is a limitation on the number of custodians per producing party from which email may be requested (5) and on the number of search terms “per custodian per party” (5), although the parties may jointly agree to modify those limits.

A copy of Chief Judge Rader’s comments at the Judicial Conference is available here.

A full copy of the [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month The Sedona Conference made available a public comment version of its newest publication, The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation: Resources for the Judiciary (“The Resources”).  The Resources “are intended to assemble and promote a variety of proven judicial management tools to help parties develop and execute appropriate, cost-effective, cooperative discovery plans; avoid unnecessary discovery disputes; and resolve discovery disputes that may arise in a fair and expeditious manner.”  The publication, a wealth of information in itself, is part of a larger effort by The Sedona Conference® to create an “interactive web site for judges to view, comment on, and contribute to over time.”  The Resources will:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 20, 2011, the judges of the Superior Court adopted revisions to the Connecticut Practice Book, including many amendments addressing electronic discovery.  Most amendments (including those addressing electronic discovery) will become effective on January 1, 2012.  Although Connecticut’s rules previously addressed the issue of electronic discovery, the newest amendments provide substantially more instruction.  Among the more notable amendments are the addition of Rule 13-5(9) allowing a court to issue a protective order which would allow for cost allocation and other remedies to avoid undue burden, etc. related to the discovery of electronically stored information; revisions to Rule 13-9(d) addressing the format of production; the addition of Rule 13-14(d) which closely, but not exactly, follows Federal Rule 37(f), and provides safe harbor for the loss of information resulting from routine, good faith operations of systems or processes “in the absence of a showing of intentional actions designed to avoid known preservation obligations”; and the addition of Rule 13-33 (Claim of Privilege or Protection After Production) which “provides a procedure for a party to assert a claim of privilege or trial-preparation material protection after information is produced in discovery, and, if the claim is contested, permits any party that received that information to present the matter to the court for resolution.”

All of the amendments to Connecticut’s Practice Book are available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 24, 2011, the San Diego County Bar Association issued SDCBA Legal Ethics Opinion 2011-2, addressing the question of whether counsel may send a “friend request” to opposing parties.  Following extensive analysis of the issue, the opinion concludes as follows:

Social Media sites have opened a broad highway on which users may post thier most private personal information.  But Facebook, at least, enables its users to place limits on who may see that information.  The rules of ethics impose limits on how attorneys may obtain information that is not publicly available, particularly from opposing parties who are represented by counsel.

We have concluded that those rules bar an attorney from making an ex parte friend request of a represented party.  An attorney’s ex parte communication to a represented party intended to elicit information about the subject matter of the representation is impermissible no matter what words are used in the communication and no matter how that communication is transmitted to the represented party.  We have further concluded that the attorney’s duty not to deceive prohibits him from making a friend request even of unrepresented witnesses without disclosing the purpose of the request.  Represented parties shouldn’t have “friends” like that and no one – represented or not, party or non-party – should be misled into accepting such friendship.  In our view, this strikes the right balance between allowing unfettered access to what is public on the Internet about parties without intruding on the attorney-client relationship of opposing parties and surreptitiously circumventing the privacy even of those who are unrepresented.

A full copy of the opinion is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The second phase of the Seventh Circuit’s Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, previously scheduled to end this month, has been extended to May 2012, according to the Interim Report on Phase Two.  According to the interim report, the decision to extend the program was made “early in Phase Two” to “allow a fuller evaluation of the Principles’s application.”  Moreover, the original principles of the program were revised “in response to the Phase One survey results” and Phase Two Principles were promulgated on August 1, 2010, to be applied for the duration of Phase Two.  Specifically, the revisions affected principles 2.01 (Duty to Meet and Confer on Discovery and to Identify Disputes for Early Resolution) and 2.06 (Production Format) and are available for review in the interim report on the program’s new website, www.discoverypilot.com.

A copy of the Interim Report on Phase Two is also available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In its most recent publication (available now in its Public Comment Version) the Sedona Conference takes on another difficult issue of e-discovery:  the preservation and production of databases and database information.  The publication, The Sedona Conference® Database Principles: Addressing the Preservation & Production of Databases and Database Information in Civil Litigation, is intended to “provide practical guidance and recommendations to both requesting and producing parties” and to “simplify discovery in civil actions involving databases and information derived from databases.”  In furtherance of those goals, the publication includes an informative introduction to the issue of preserving and producing database information, a discussion of the application of some of the existing Sedona Principles, and a discussion of the six new Database Principles and their practical application.  The six new Database Principles are:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks