Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, of the groundbreaking decision in Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 1995 WL 649934 (S.D. N.Y. 1995), issued a cautionary opinion for non parties in the Southern District of New York. Stating that the non party had not been helpful in framing search terms (read–reducing their own costs), Judge Peck split the difference between the actual parties’ requests and added some more in this required reading for SDNY litigants. He also left the door open to further searches after the non party deposition.
Not content with reacting, Judge Peck suggested that cooperation and participation is key to cost reduction and gave us all a big hint about resurrecting the Re: line at the beginning of memos to avoid a large dragnet of search terms gathering non responsive (and highly confidential data).
William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. 07 Civ. 10639 (LAK) (AJP) (March 19, 2009).
Filed under Case Law & Rules, Federal Rules, Sound Evidence, Technology Counsel.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I heard Judge Peck speak on ESI discovery issues at an ethics conference in Boston this past February. He’s clearly ahead of many lawyers on ESI issues. Also a very big fan of the Sedonna protocols.