Discovery Resources

Do the collection and evaluation of electronic records for use in court require a professional license? In litigation a mistake on this question can surprisingly cause a party to lose a lawsuit. A Texas judge ruled the company operating a red-light enforcement camera (Affiliated Computer Services (ACS)) was acting illegally because it did not have a private investigator license. Read more

Nineteen states have incorporated e-discovery provisions into civil procedure codes or have modified rules for business courts.  At least five other states have new provisions pending in 2009. Tom Allman and Mary Mack provide a review of what states are doing about procedural rules for e-discovery.  More info

When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went on a publicity tour for his book on legal writing earlier this year, it was considered a rare peek into the mind of an influential jurist. This article by Jason Krause on Law.com discusses how few litigation topics have gotten the judiciary talking as much as e-discovery.

State and local governments are routinely confronted with new and complex challenges. Texas, like some other states, proactively changed its procedures prior to the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this article, Chad Vander Veen at Government Technology discusses the importance of this proactive approach.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm and attorneys Paul Mark Sandler and Charles S. Fax, whose second book, entitled “Maryland Discovery Problems and Solutions,” address the issues around discovery and privilege in this article by Brandon Kearney from the Maryland Daily Record.

The Judicial Council in California is considering new rules for electronic discovery, which has been received warily by the high-tech industry. Read more on Law.com.

The Judicial Council of California on Friday approved proposed legislation to modernize civil discovery law and improve the procedures for handling the discovery of electronically stored information in California civil cases. Read more about the endorsement on Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

Tom Allman is everywhere. As our legal community rationalizes our practices (rules), he will be one of the main reasons that the rules in different jurisdictions are as harmonized as they are now. There are distinct differences that can be exploited, but they are more nuances than wholesale differences.

An excerpt from the great coverage of Sean Doherty:

Thomas Y. Allman kicked off the LegalTech conference in New York discussing rule-making and best practices in e-discovery. E-discovery is exploding in direct proportion to the amount of electronically stored information available in litigation — and is being fueled by the tremendous growth of e-mail as a business record. The

continue…

More links and cases from the State Rule Webcast with Tom Allman:

Uniform Rules Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

California case where requesting party pays costs:
Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Preservation obligation extends to RAM (but no sanctions for not):
Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Bunnell, 2007 WL 2080419 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2007).

Case citing Zubulake about counsel’s obligations to understand client’s IT; finding counsel grossly negligent for inadequate search and production:
Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006continue…