Discovery Resources

Wed. 12/16 - As of Sept. 2009, twenty five states have adopted e-discovery procedural rules that reflect the 2006 FRCP amendments. Many others are considering changes. In this 3rd annual webcast, Tom Allman and Mary Mack provide an update.  More info / Register >

California Lawyer this month has a interesting article by Perry L. Segal, an IT executive turned e-discovery attorney and consultant. “Remember the old adage “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? In the e-discovery universe, you’ll need several pounds. The California Electronic Discovery Act has been in place for about three months, and I’ve been fielding a lot of inquiries. The number one question is: “How much is all this going to cost?”

Answer: How much do you have?”

Continue reading…

Contrary to popular belief, the new California rules for ediscovery do not mandate a protective order when dealing with not reasonably accessible data.  The rules are similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the not reasonably accessible data needs to be identified, and then the burden shifts to the other side to press further.  The earlier draft, vetoed by the governor last year, did not have this provision.  This change will save California businesses millions in motion fees and courts substantial time in hearing them.

Some practitioners with experience crafted the provision.  Categories and sources can be identified, removing the potential requirement of indexing tapes to determine with continue…

As of September 2009, twenty-three states have adopted statewide ediscovery procedural rules which mirror or reflect the 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2006 Amendments). In addition, several states have adopted, typically as a separate measure, an analog to the Federal Evidence Rule 502 dealing with waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection.

Mr. Allman analyzes the continuing evolution of ediscovery at the state level here.

Tip of the hat to David Bowerman and the fine bloggers at K&L Gates…..

Not every judge has the experiences of Magistrate Judges Facciola, Waxse, Grimm or Peck when it comes to electronically stored information.  Some District Court judges are just now issuing their first ESI opinions, over 2.5 years since the December 2006 Amendments. And for those who have not followed the news, California state judges will now be facing these issues since California enacted its own Civil Discovery Act addressing e-Discovery. Continue reading….

Tip of the hat to Bowtie Law Blogger Joshua Gilliland, Esq.