February 2007 – Page 2 – Electronic Discovery Law

Audio Broadcast: Electronic Records Management Pioneers Share Practical Tips

Feb 05 2007

Electronic Records Management Pioneers Share Their Tips on What Works, What’s Practical, and What Not to Do

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
2:00-4:30PM ET

Don’t miss this Special Counsel telecast event featuring K&L Gates’ partner David Cohen, co-chair of the firm’s Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management practice.

Program Overview: The new E-discovery rules have had tremendous impact on records management. The complexities are more abundant than ever. The challenges confront all litigators, and the costs are huge.

An October 2006 survey revealed that only 7% of corporate counsel view their companies as prepared for the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information and 50% were not even aware the new rules were being enacted.
In-house IT personnel are also sounding the alarm as a Dec. 2006 Computer World Survey, 32% of 170 IT managers and staffers surveyed said they aren’t prepared to meet the requirements of the federal edict, 11% said they are somewhat prepared, while 42% said they don’t know the status of their companies’ preparation.
This special live audio presentation will help you do more to manage your electronic records. We will be presenting ideas and thoughts from an esteemed panel of innovators and pioneers in the electronic record management field.

This program is appropriate for C level executives, in-house counsel, IT staff, records managers, and outside counsel. Click here to register or for more information.

Court Allows Plaintiffs to Conduct Expedited Discovery Regarding Possible Spoliation

Feb 05 2007

Roberts v. Canadian Pac. R.R. Ltd., 2007 WL 118901 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2007)

In this decision, Chief District Judge James M. Rosenbaum granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery concerning spoliation of evidence on an expedited basis. The case concerned a train derailment accident that occurred near Minot, North Dakota, and was one of more than 100 cases removed to the court after having been filed in state court. During the state court proceedings, plaintiffs had discovered an email message sent by a manager to the railroad’s top claims agent. The message began by stating: “In the tradition of keeping very few Minot-related e-mails . . .” The manager was deposed and asked about the email, at which time he admitted destroying emails regarding the derailment, purportedly based upon the direction of a higher-up in the organization. Subsequent to the deposition, defendants apparently hired a computer forensics expert to investigate whether electronic data was destroyed, and if so, whether any deleted material could be retrieved. Plaintiffs sought to discover the results of the investigation and to depose the forensics expert as soon as possible.
Read More

Court Grants Protective Order Shielding Plaintiffs From Re-Producing ESI in Native Format, But Denies Relief as to Prospective Production

Feb 05 2007

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 121426 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2007)

This case is a consolidated multidistrict litigation brought by some plaintiffs as a putative class action, as well as by other individual plaintiffs who sued exclusively on their own behalf. In this decision, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein addressed a dispute that arose between the individual plaintiffs and the defendants regarding metadata and the format of production. Between June and November 2006, the individual plaintiffs had made at least six productions of electronic documents using their own protocol, which involved printing electronic documents and then scanning the pages thus printed to create “TIFF” images, which could be converted into a searchable text file through the use of “OCR” software. “In other words, Individual Plaintiffs have rather laboriously stripped their text-searchable electronic documents of metadata that would not appear in printed form, and then converted them back into text-searchable electronic documents without that subset of metadata.”
Read More

Ethical Considerations in Light of the Recent E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules

Feb 02 2007

By Carolyn M. Branthoover and Karen I. Marryshow

Electronic communications and devices have changed the way we live and work. As those changes have occurred, litigants and courts have struggled with the application of traditional discovery rules to ever-evolving forms of electronically stored information. On December 1, 2006, several important amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. These amendments explicitly modify discovery procedures to address electronically stored information or “ESI.” In particular, the changes impose express obligations on parties to preserve, disclose and produce ESI. While much already has been written about the direct impact of these changes on the discovery process, lawyers must also consider thoughtfully how the recent amendments affect their ethical obligations.

Click here to view the complete story.

Archive - February 2007