We are pleased to announce that the Electronic Discovery Law blog has been nominated to participate in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest in the AmLaw category. Thanks to those who nominated us and to all of our readers and subscribers (sign up today!) for their ongoing interest in our blog. Voting is now open and runs through 12:00 AM on November 3rd. If you have appreciated our blog over the years, we would appreciate your vote! CLICK HERE to cast your vote for the Electronic Discovery Law blog.
It is our pleasure to provide you with regular summaries of important and interesting e-Discovery opinions and other e-Discovery resources. We hope you enjoy them. If you do, please consider nominating us for the ABA Journal’s Web 100 – a celebration of the “best of the legal industry on the web.” Nominations are due no later than 11:50 p.m. CT on Sunday, July 30, 2017 and can be made by filling out the nomination form, available here.
Thanks for your interest in our blog!
The K&L Gates Electronic Discovery Law Blog Team
A three-year pilot project studying “whether requiring parties in civil cases to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before undertaking other discovery will reduce the cost and delay of civil litigation” is now underway in the District of Arizona and the Northern District of Illinois. All civil cases in these jurisdictions, except those exempted by the program’s Standing Order, will be subject to the provisions of the program.
Formal Opinion 749
In February, the NY County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee issued Formal Opinion 749, addressing “[a] lawyer’s ethical duty of technological competence with respect to the duty to protect a client’s confidential information from cybersecurity risk and handling e-discovery when representing clients in a litigation or government investigation.” The committee summarized its detailed analysis as follows:
The Sedona Conference has published revisions to its foundational Sedona Principles, The Sedona Principles, Third Edition: Best Practices, Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production. As stated in the preface, the Third Edition was “necessitated by an even greater explosion in the volume and diversity of forms of electronically stored information, the constant evolution of technology applied to eDiscovery, and by further amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” as well as by many years of experience in e-discovery. Thus, “[t]he Third Edition has been thoroughly updated to take into account evolving views on electronic discovery over the past decade, based upon the collective experiences of the WG1 membership in facing the myriad of practical issues that are influencing the development of the law in this area, the numerous important court decisions across the country, and, of course, the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules [of] Civil Procedure.”
Interested parties are invited to “join the dialogue and expand the consensus” around the revised principles and may provide comments to the drafting committee until June 30, 2017.
The Sedona Principles, Third Edition is available for download, here.
It seems that predictive coding may be catching on in the UK. Not long ago, the English High Court approved the use of predictive coding for the first time in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd  EWHC 256 (Ch). In that case, the parties agreed to the use of predictive coding software and merely sought approval from the court. Now, The Lawyer (registration required) reports that the High Court has once again weighed in on the issue, this time to approve the use of predictive coding despite the apparent objection of at least one party. This is the first time such an order has been granted. While the details of the order and underlying disagreement have yet to be revealed, the result bodes well for parties seeking to rely on such technology in future.
Stay tuned to this space for more information as it becomes available.
Chief Justice John Roberts has issued his annual report on the federal judiciary, focused primarily on the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including a brief history of their development and discussion of their intended effects. Among other things, the report makes clear that the amendments “mark significant change, for both lawyers and judges, in the future conduct of civil trials.” The report further counsels that:
The 2015 civil rules amendments are a major stride toward a better federal court system. But they will achieve the goal of Rule 1—“the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”—only if the entire legal community, including the bench, bar, and legal academy, step up to the challenge of making real change.
A full copy of the report is available for download, here.
The e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (e-DAT) Group at K&L Gates is proud to announce that the Electronic Discovery Law blog has again been named to the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 list. Thanks to all who nominated us and to all of our readers for their ongoing interest in the important issues affecting electronic discovery!
Click here to read more about the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 list and to see this year’s list of excellent legal blogs and 2015 Hall of Fame inductees.
The wait is over. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are effective today.
The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are significant and will have a direct impact on the day to day practice of law, particularly discovery. If you’ve been putting off your review of the amendments, the time for action is now! Take a few minutes (or a few hours) to review these important amendments and/or attend one of K&L Gates’ two live events to learn more! (Live events are also available via webinar.)
CLICK HERE for an overview of the rules amendments package.
To register for K&L Gates’ complimentary CLE, “Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery – Are You Ready This Time?” follow the links below:
- CLICK HERE to attend LIVE! in Seattle: Dec. 1, 2015, 1:30 PM -5:30 (with post-program reception)
- CLICK HERE to attend LIVE! in Pittsburgh: Dec. 3, 2015, 8:30 AM-12:15
- Can’t Attend in Person? Email Allison Peterson (firstname.lastname@example.org) to attend via Webinar. Log-in instructions will be emailed to you.
Following the ECJ’s decision in the “Schrems” case which has invalidated the Safe Harbor framework (click here for our firm’s recent alert on this matter) multinational corporations may now face profound privacy law related compliance issues in a multitude of jurisdictions.
In the Schrems decision, the ECJ held that the widespread practice of U.S. companies to self-certify under the Safe Harbor standards in order to legitimize data transfers from EU companies to U.S. companies does not provide for an adequate level of data protection. As a result the court held that the Safe Harbor principles are invalid and thus shattered the legal basis for the data transfer from countless EU entities to U.S. entities. The ECJ substantiates its decision with the fact that all personal data stored in the United States is subject to almost unrestricted and unpredictable access by U.S. authorities, that the data subject has no legal way to prevent this access, and that subordination under the Safe Harbor statute does not mitigate this threat. The ECJ considers this situation to be a major and unjustifiable violation of EU citizens’ fundamental rights and requires local data protection authorities to assess the admissibility of data transfers without relying on the subordination of U.S. companies under the Safe Harbor regime.
Click here to read the full article.