Mechanisms That Help Reduce the Cost of E-Discovery | NJ Law Journal

No matter how vigilant, there is no way to fully insulate yourself from a potential lawsuit. It should come as no surprise that defending a lawsuit, even one where you are ultimately not liable, can be costly. Advancements in technology, including the ubiquitous use of e-mail, can significantly increase the cost of litigation. With all of the unavoidable expenses associated with litigation, in these economic times it is necessary to implement mechanisms that help curtail the cost of litigation, especially with regard to electronic discovery.

RELEVANT COURT RULES REGARDING E-DISCOVERY

Courts have recognized the importance of technological advancements in litigation by implementing rules that require parties to produce electronic information in discovery. Indeed, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the New Jersey Rules of Court (collectively, the “court rules”) require parties to produce their electronically stored information during litigation. Federal Rules 26(a)(1) and N.J. Rules 4:18-1(a).

In federal actions, parties are required to disclose, among other things, documents and other objects within their possession that may be used to support their claims or defenses prior to receiving a discovery request. Federal Rules 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). As of December 1, 2006, the term “documents” has been expanded to include ESI among the type of information and documents produced in litigation. Similarly, the N.J. Rules provide that a party may request ESI from its adversary. N.J. Rules 4:18-1(a).

Although not formally defined in either set of the court rules, in practice it is understood that ESI includes information “created, manipulated, communicated, stored, and best utilized in digital form, requiring the use of computer hardware and software.” “Electronically Stored Information: The December 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Kenneth J. Withers, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol.4 (2), 171, 173. Although the most commonly requested form of ESI is e-mail, the court rules require production of electronic data in formats other than e-mail.

The court rules have attempted to provide some limitations to the production requirements of electronic discovery, presumably in an effort to achieve fairness and balance. For example, in the context of a federal case, “[a] party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Federal Rules 26(b)(2)(B). However, even with limitations, the production of ESI can be very expensive and onerous.

via Mechanisms That Help Reduce the Cost of E-Discovery.

Flexibility, Directness Key In E-Discovery: Judges – Law360

To ensure a successful resolution to electronic discovery disputes while staying on a judge’s good side, be forthcoming with information and willing to compromise with opposing counsel, magistrate judges advise.

Three magistrate judges detailed their views on important discovery rules and attorney conduct during discovery Friday at the annual conference of the American Bar Association’s litigation section in New York.

Magistrate Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey said opposing parties in a case must talk early on in the discovery process about key issues, including the format in which they want the documents to be produced, so conflict can be avoided down the line.

If the parties reach an impasse, they should get the judge involved to work out a compromise, she said, adding that “I’m the type of magistrate judge that wants to know early on if there’s going to be a problem.”

Specificity is a virtue in e-discovery, Judge Salas said, so she does not look kindly upon counsel who provide vague data or fail to give a reason for their objections to discovery requests.

“If you say it would be too expensive and I say, ‘How much will it cost?’ and you say, ‘I don’t know,’ that’s a problem, guys,” she said.

The judges on the panel said they often liked to hear from the information technology staff members of a company involved in a discovery dispute, since their expertise can clear up arguments.

via Flexibility, Directness Key In E-Discovery: Judges – Law360.

Attorneys Argue Over Venue for Toyota Litigation | Law.com

More than 100 lawyers packed a downtown San Diego federal courtroom on Thursday to hear arguments about which court is best prepared to hear the increasing number of lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. over sudden unintended acceleration in millions of its vehicles.

In all, 24 lawyers made brief statements before a panel, arguing for courts and judges in California, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia and New Jersey.

Cari Dawson, a partner at Alston and Bird who is lead counsel for Toyota, argued for the Central District of California, where one-third of the cases have been filed and where her client is located.

The panel of five judges who regularly hear jurisdictional issues for multidistrict litigation raised few questions about the locations but asked lawyers to address whether the class actions should be separated from the personal injury suits. Most of the lawyers appeared to favor keeping the cases together.

The panel is expected to rule within a few weeks.

Since last fall, more than 10 million Toyota vehicles have been recalled in order to repair problems with accelerator pedals, floor mats and brakes, all of which have been identified as causing sudden and unintended acceleration. Toyota's problems have multiplied, with new reports coming out each week indicating that the Japanese automaker might have known about the acceleration issue years ago.

The vast majority of the lawsuits — nearly 90 — have been filed on behalf of a class of consumers who are seeking economic damages because their recalled Toyota vehicles have lost value. A smaller group of personal injury suits have been filed on behalf of individuals who claim to have died or been injured in an accident because their Toyota vehicles suddenly accelerated.

via Law.com – Attorneys Argue Over Venue for Toyota Litigation.

Challenging ‘Manual’ ESI Collections | Law.com

Discovery of electronically stored information is now an integral part of civil litigation in federal courts. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and 34 address production of electronically stored information, they are silent on related procedures for searching and collecting ESI. For various business reasons, including burden and expense, some corporate litigants opt for more informal, “manual” collection methods (i.e., searches performed by individual records custodians, often without sophisticated data-collection software and hardware) when responding to ESI requests.

What happens when the requesting party challenges the results of a production based on manual collection methods or otherwise objects to the propriety of those methods? In Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties Inc., 257 F.R.D. 418 (D.N.J. 2009), the District of New Jersey analyzed whether manual collection methods (versus automated) are sufficiently reasonable to meet a party’s electronic discovery obligations. This article will address this evolving issue and the guidance provided by Ford and other relevant decisions.

Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specify procedures for searching and collecting ESI, the Sedona Conference, a respected nonprofit research and educational institute that has provided substantial guidance on e-discovery best practices, has established some benchmarks. In June 2007, the Sedona Conference published the second edition of its seminal work, The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production. The Sedona Principles elaborate on 14 principles intended to frame e-discovery best practices including ESI search and collection procedures. These now-essential guidelines were followed by the Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search And Information Retrieval Methods In E-Discovery, which contains eight “practice points,” several recommendations and extensive discussion on the current state of search and retrieval methodologies and practice.

via Challenging ‘Manual’ ESI Collections.

Author of Accusatory E-Mails Can Stay Masked, Judge Rules in Libel Suit | Law.com

Failure to make a prima facie case that an anonymous e-mail was defamatory is grounds to quash a subpoena seeking the message-writer's identity, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in New Jersey says.

No plaintiff “is entitled to an order unmasking an anonymous author when the statements in question cannot support a cause of action for defamation,” the court said in A.Z. (a minor) v. Doe, A-5060-08.

Monday's decision upheld — though for different reasons — a trial judge's denial of a subpoena request by a high school student who sued over a message sent to a high school counselor about underage drinking.

Both courts applied the four-prong test for unmasking anonymous online posters of defamatory material in Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (2001).

The trial judge found the plaintiff failed to meet the fourth prong, requiring a showing that her need for disclosure outweighed the defendant's First Amendment right to anonymity. But the appeals court found she failed to satisfy the third prong, requiring prima facie evidence supporting every element of the cause of action, because she made only a minimal effort to refute the underage drinking allegation, the appeals panel said.

via Law.com – Author of Accusatory E-Mails Can Stay Masked, Judge Rules in Libel Suit.

Apple May Release IPhone to All U.S. Carriers, Oppenheimer Says – BusinessWeek

Apple Inc. may release the iPhone to all U.S. wireless carriers in the next 18 months, doubling or tripling the number of devices sold, said Tim Horan, a telecommunications analyst at Oppenheimer & Co.

T-Mobile USA Inc. will get the phone this summer, followed by Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel Corp. in the fall, and Clearwire Corp. in 2011, Horan wrote in a note yesterday. AT&T Inc. has been the exclusive carrier since the iPhone debuted in June 2007.

“We believe AT&T’s iPhone exclusivity arrangement with Apple will be expiring by mid-2010,” Horan wrote. “For wireless carriers, customers are demanding the device and they need to remain competitive.”

Apple, based in Cupertino, California, rose $3.80, or 1.9 percent, to $201.55 at 12:36 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The stock more than doubled last year.

Representatives of Basking Ridge, New Jersey-based Verizon Wireless, Dallas-based AT&T, Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint and Bellevue, Washington-based T-Mobile declined to comment. A call to Clearwire in Kirkland, Washington, wasn’t immediately returned.

via Apple May Release IPhone to All U.S. Carriers, Oppenheimer Says – BusinessWeek.

Justices Sympathetic to Applying Headquarters Standard to Corporate Jurisdiction

For a corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court’s axiom may soon be: Home is where the headquarters is.

The Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, which raises a seemingly simple but vexing question crucial for corporations: For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, where is a company’s principal place of business?

The answer will be crucial in determining whether a corporation can be sued in federal court, as it might prefer, or in plaintiff-friendly state courts. Acting in a class action by Hertz employees over wages and hours filed in California, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that, even though its headquarters is in New Jersey, Hertz is a citizen of California because more business activities occur there than in any other state. With both sides deemed to be from California, there was no federal diversity jurisdiction, so the case went to state court. Hertz appealed to the high court.

Hertz’s lawyer, Sri Srinivasan of O’Melveny & Myers’ Washington office, argued for a simpler test, namely where a company’s headquarters is, or “the site from which a corporation directs and controls all the company’s operations throughout all of its locations.” That is a “relatively straightforward” determination that the public can easily ascertain, Srinivasan said, and it also preserves diversity jurisdiction in all but a company’s headquarters state.

via Law.com – Justices Sympathetic to Applying Headquarters Standard to Corporate Jurisdiction.

Attorney-Client Privilege in Work E-Mails

There are now several decisions determining whether employees can retain attorney-client privilege for e-mails sent to their lawyers using their employer-provided e-mail addresses and computers — reaching apparently inconsistent conclusions. This article compares and seeks to reconcile the cases, and to assist lawyers in advising clients on how to avoid the risks that such communications pose. The first of these cases, Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center Inc., 2007 WL 3053351 N.Y. Sup. Oct. 17, 2007, was previously featured in an article in this column “Abusive Litigation Tactics and Loss of Privilege,” March 3, 2008, but is revisited here because a New Jersey court recently reached a diametrically opposite conclusion on quite similar facts, in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency Inc., 973 A.2d 390 N.J. Super. A.D. July 29, 2009. The article also reviews other recent decisions in the same general subject area.

via Legal Technology – Attorney-Client Privilege in Work E-Mails.