May 23, 2012

Grappling with Electronic Discovery

“You want me to search all of our databases, BlackBerrys and laptops for what?” That’s a question many companies are asking in horror as they grapple with the relatively new phenomenon of electronic discovery (commonly known as e-discovery). As you may have already experienced, e-discovery can not only increase the legal fees associated with litigation (whether you are suing or being sued), but also put a strain on your precious internal resources. In some cases, this reality may cause you to assess risk strictly in economic terms, with little or no emphasis on the substance of the case or legal precedent. Given the uncertainty that accompanies any litigation, focusing narrowly on the bottom line might not always be a bad strategy. But one thing is for sure, e-discovery creates new challenges when it comes to evaluating your dispute resolution options.

Developing Your Plan

A few years ago, the rules that govern cases pending in federal courts (which have also been adopted in certain state courts) began requiring the exchange of electronic documents by parties involved in a lawsuit. Complying with these new e-discovery rules requires significant information technology expertise. How do you make sure that you capture all relevant e-mails that were sent and received by your employees? In what format must the e-mails be produced: TIFF, PDF, native? What about documents, including drafts, that are sent and received internally and externally?

Compliance with e-discovery rules also requires significant preparation—even before you become involved in a lawsuit. Does your company have a document retention policy? How long are you required to keep documents on your "system"? What do you do with documents or e-mails created by employees who are terminated or leave on their own accord? Is there anyone at your company who has a handle on how electronic records are kept? Do you have a mechanism to segregate documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege?

Suffice it to say, never before has the burden been greater on businesses to comply with these rules and prepare for potential litigation. For some companies, the electronic discovery rules have changed how they maintain and disclose information, much like the revolutionary Sarbanes-Oxley legislation did in 2002.

Help Is on the Way

A recent study published by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System and the American College of Trial Lawyers concludes that "electronic discovery is a 'morass' and 87% of respondents believe that electronic discovery is too expensive." The report also concludes that increased litigation costs are causing legitimate cases either not to be filed or to be settled with little regard to the underlying merits of the case.

Based on the results of the study, both organizations are in the process of drafting suggested changes to the federal rules that govern discovery, with the goal of addressing the expense and inefficiencies associated with e-discovery. In particular, they hope to restore Rule Number 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which calls for a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."

In the meantime, it is critical for companies to carefully assess the implications of the current e-discovery rules.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Edward D. Shapiro focuses his practice on the efficient prevention, management and resolution of disputes for commercial entities, organizations and individuals. Serving as Chair of the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, Ed advises and represents clients in state and federal court, before administrative agencies, and in mediation and arbitration in a full range of business matters.

312-521-2421

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.