Electronic discovery: 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Attorneys should be mindful of the examples provide by Markel during their pre-discovery preparation. Doing so will help avoid tainting ESI that may potentially be used as evidence in court.

V. CONCLUSION

Electronically stored information has certainly created challenges at the discovery phase of discovery. Many of the challenges faced by attorneys are created by the lack of technical knowledge associated with ESI, the "hysteria" that many vendors and consultants try to create, and the fact that the FRCP does not deal with e-discovery as adequately as it should. However, through early preparation attorneys can learn the intricacies of e-discovery and thereby control the time, costs and other issues.

(1.) The "E-discovery Amendments" include changes to FED. R. CIV. P. 16, 26, 33, 37 and 45. See generally EXCERPT OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES (E-GOVERNMENT AND E-DISCOVERY), (July 20, 2006), http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/supct1106/Excerpt_CV_EGovt.pdf.

(2.) Ronald K. Perkowski, Coping With the EDD Drumbeat, LAW.COM, Jan. 25, 2008, http ://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id= 1201169140560.

(3.) See John J. DiGiglio, Electronic Mail: From Computer to Courtroom, 35 INFO. MGMT. J. 2, 1-3 (2001); Matthew M. Neumier & Brian D. Hansen, Avoiding the Pitfalls of Electronic Discovery, 1-2 MEALEY'S LIT. REP. DISC., 1 (2003).

(4.) See Per Anderson, Thom Rubel & Melissa Webster, Adoption of Document Standards, IDC White Paper 208278, 3 (2007), http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/documents/IDC%20Document%20Adoptions %20White%20Paper.pdf. A typical corporate email user sends and receives about 110 emails per day. RADICATI GROUP, EMAIL SENT AND RECEIVED GROWTH STATISTICS, 2003-2005. (2003). Research indicates that email traffic in general has increased 80% between 2002 and 2003. Id.

(5.) THE SEDONA CONFERENCE, THE SEDONA GUIDELINES: BEST PRACTICE & COMMENTARY FOR MANAGING INFORMATION & RECORDS IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE, vi (2005) [Hereinafter SEDONA GUIDELINES 2005].

(6.) See STEVE GILHEANY, THE DECLINE OF MAGNETIC DISK STORAGE COST OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS, 1, http://www.berghell.com/whitepapers/storage%20costs.pdf. Gilheany projects the price of one terabyte, the rough equivalent of 2,000 scanned filing cabinets, will decrease from $8,373.39 in 2000 to $70.11 in 2008. Id. A search for one terabyte hard drives on Google Products yields a range of $223.20 to $473.30. http://www.google.com/products?q=%221+terabyte%22+Hard+drive&btnG=Sear ch+Products&hl=en&show=dd&scoring=pd, last visited on January 26, 2008.

(7.) See BARBARA CHURCHHILL, THE IMPACT OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION ON CORPORATE LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT: AN IBM POINT OF VIEW, 3 (2006), http://tld.www-03.cacheibm.com/industries/financialservices/ doc/content/bin/fss_the_impact_of_eletronically.pdf; James Moore, E-Discovery: The Newly Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, P-E MOORE's FEDERAL PRACTICE--CIVIL PART I, 2007.

(8.) Moore, supra note 7.

(9.) Id.

(10.) Marshall Brian & Tim Crosby, How E-mail Works, HowStuffWorks.com, Oct. 18, 2007, http://communication.howstuffworks.com/email.htm.

(11.) Microsoft Help and Support, How To Recover A Lost File In Word 2007 or 2003, Jan. 25, 2007, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/827099.

(12.) Scott Nagel, Embedded Information in Electronic Documents: Why Metadata Matters, July 2004, LAW PRACTICE TODAY, http://www.abanet.org/1pm/lpt/articles/ftr07044.html.

(13.) Id.

(14.) THE SEDONA CONFERENCE, THE SEDONA PRINCIPLES: BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS & PRINCIPLES FOR ADDRESSING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, 60 (2007) [Hereinafter NEDONA PRINCIPLES 2007].

(15.) Chad Perrin, Deleting Files Isn't Always Enough, TECHREPUBLIC, January 8, 2008, http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?P=388.

(16.) Id.

(17.) Moore, supra note 7.

(18.) FED. R. CIV. P. 34 (1970). The Advisory Committee notes state that "[t]he inclusive description of 'documents' is revised to accord with changing technology. It makes clear that Rule 34 applies to electronics data compilations from which information can be obtained...." Id.

(19.) See generally, FED. R. CIV. P. 26 (2006).

(20.) Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 674885 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Mar. 23, 2005).

(21.) Id. at*l-9.

(22.) Id.

(23.) Landon Thomas, Jr., Jury Tallies Morgan's Total at $1.45 Billion, N.Y. TIMES, May 19, 2005, at 31, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/business/19perelman.html.

(24.) See generally, Morgan Stanley, supra note 20.

(25.) Id. at *2.

(26.) Moore, supra note 7.

(27.) Id.

(28.) Id.

(29.) 54 F.R.D. 220 (W.D. Va. 1972)

(30.) Id. at 221.

(31.) Id. at 221-222.

(32.) Id. at 222.

(33.) See, e.g., Nat'l Union Elec. Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. Ltd., 494 F.Supp 1257, 1262 (E.D. Pa. 1980).

(34.) See Bristol-Myers Squibb Sec. Lit., 205 F.R.D. 437, 440-441 (D.N.J. 2002) (holding that requesting party must pay for electronic copies but need not pay for the creation of original electronic versions); In re Air Crash Disaster at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 130 F.R.D. 634, 636 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (ordering responding party to produce electronic copy of a computer tape, but ordering requesting party to pay cost of creating the copy).

(35.) 183 F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1989).

(36.) Id. at 600-601.

(37.) Id. at 598.

(38.) Id. at 601.

(39.) Id. at 601-602.

(40.) Rowe, 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

(41.) Id. at 424-425.

(42.) Id. at 425.

(43.) ADAM I. COHEN & DAVID J. LENDER, ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY: LAW AND PRACTICE, 5-23, (Aspen Publishing 2007).

(44.) Rowe, supra note 40, at 429.

(45.) Id. at 433.

(46.) Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC., 217 F.R.D. 309, 322-323 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) [hereinafter Zubulake 1].

(47.) Id. at 312.

(48.) Id. at 322-323.

(49.) Id. at 321-323.

(50.) Id. at 324.

(51.) Id. at 318.

(52.) Id. at 324.

(53.) Id.

(54.) Id. at 322-323.

(55.) See, e.g., Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (Wiginton II), 229 F.R.D 568, 573 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (modifying the Zubulake factors to emphasize the proportionality test of the pre-amendment FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(iii), which, like the Rowe factors, favored shifting the cost to the plaintiff).

(56.) Ladas & Parry, L.L.P., Federal Rules to be Amended to Address Electronic Discovery, http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/2006/FRCPElectronicDiscovery.shtml, (last visited Jan. 5, 2008).

(57.) See note 10, supra and accompanying text.

(58.) See Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Quest Software, Inc., 2003 WL 21277129, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2003).

(59.) Marrero, 2006 WL 1967364 (D.P.R. 2006)

(60.) Id. at *1.

(61.) Id.

(62.) Id.

(63.) Id. at *4.

(64.) Compare Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Dot Hill Corp., 2006 WL 1544621, *3 (W.D. Tex. May 31, 2006)(holding that producing emails inadvertently was voluntary and therefore privilege was waived) and MSF Holding, Ltd. v. Fiduciary Trust Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34171 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2005)(finding that privilege emails produced inadvertently constituted waiver because they were not marked privilege) with In re Natural Gas Commodity, Lit., 229 F.R.D. 82 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(finding no waiver of where privileged emails were inadvertently produced despite two rounds of review) and Chrysler Corp. v. Sheridan, 2001 WL 773099 (Mich. App. July 10, 2001)(stating that inadvertent disclosure of privileged emails does not constitute waiver).

(65.) COHEN & LENDER, supra note 43, at 7-21.

(66.) Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 354 F.3d 739, 751 (8th Cir. 2004). See e.g., McGuire v. Acufex Microsugical, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 149 (D. Mass. 1997) (recognizing that the duty to preserve ESI can arise prior to the filing of a complaint against a party, based on other pending litigation against the party); Broccoli v. Echostar Commc'n. Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005) (holding that defendant had a duty to preserve relevant ESI, based on pre-litigation communications in which plaintiff complained about sexual harassment); Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S., 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D. Va. 2001) (finding that "if a party has notice (by discovery request, by the provisions of a rule regarding disclosure, or otherwise)..., that party is under a duty not to take actions that would result in the destruction of [electronic data]").

(67.) COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EXCERPT FROM THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, 13 (Sept. 2005), http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/supct1105/Excerpt_STReport_CV.pdf.

(68.) COHEN & LENDER, supra note 43 at 3-30.

(69.) Morgan Stanley, supra note 20 at *6.

(70.) Id. at 4.

(71.) Thomas, supra note 23.

(72.) 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722).

(73.) MARGARET M. KOESEL & TRACY L. TURNBULL, SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE: SANCTIONS FOR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL LITIGATION ix (Daniel F. Gourash ed., American Bar Association) (2006).

(74.) Id.

(75.) Id.

(76.) Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y 2003) ("Zubulake IV").

(77.) COHEN & LENDER, supra note 43 at 3-48-3-49.

(78.) Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 229 F.R.D. 422, 431, (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Zubulake V").

(79.) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPORT OF THE CIVIL RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 20-72 (2006), available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr06p.pdf. [Hereinafter ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT].

(80.) See United States Supreme Court Order on Rules of Civil Procedure, April 12, 2006, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr06p.pdf.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates