E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age | NY Law Journal (H. Christopher Boehning & Daniel J. Toal)

E-discovery is a costly necessity of modern litigation. With the ease of email and network data-storage came a deluge of litigation expenses. But producing parties, who historically have born the majority of these costs, may now find some relief in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 54(d) provides that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The awardable or “taxable” costs are listed in 28 U.S.C. §1920, and include “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.” At first glance, this provision might not seem to encompass e-discovery costs. Since an amendment in 2008 that replaced the word “papers” with “any materials,” however, courts uniformly have concluded that §1920 covers at least some e-discovery costs.[FOOTNOTE 1]

The question that remains is what e-discovery costs are recoverable. Courts confronting this question have identified five elements that a party must establish to tax its adversary with e-discovery costs: (1) the party seeking costs must have been the “prevailing party”; (2) the costs must stem from a modern equivalent of “copying”; (3) the costs must have been necessary; (4) the costs must be reasonable; and (5) the costs must be sufficiently documented to support the other elements.

Although these elements provide a useful analytical framework, they provide an uncertain guide as to how courts will actually rule on requests to recover e-discovery costs. Indeed, courts frequently come to inconsistent conclusions regarding seemingly similar requests for costs. Although it remains the case that there are few bright-line rules as to what e-discovery costs are taxable, trends are beginning to emerge in how courts interpret each of these requirements.

via E-Discovery Cost Recovery in the Digital Age.

Why One Stop Shops Will Rule The World | Guest columns

No one can debate the “megastore effect” on our personal lives. There is something compelling about the ability to visit a single store and shop for a refrigerator, laptop computer, cell phone, car stereo and then grab a snack in the restaurant. Even better, great “megastores” today provide highly experienced consultants to help with your selection. Why do we shop there? They us save time while providing a great selection, low prices, and high quality service from a single company.

Imagine this same approach with your legal department.

You come into work and start your legal dashboard, review which matters require your immediate attention, which matters are over budget or at least headed in that direction, which matters are in litigation and where they are at in e-Discovery. You grab the first cup of coffee and then review the law firm invoices requiring your approval, collaborate with outside counsel, review documents you have purposefully avoided and then grab the second cup of coffee. You check your entity management program to insure the SEC filings have occurred with no delay and that the Board of Directors received their packets for the upcoming board meeting.

via Why One Stop Shops Will Rule The World | Guest columns.

DoD Issues Rule Restricting Mandatory Arbitration Agreements for Contractors : Washington D.C. Employment Law Update

The Department of Defense (DoD) will publish in tomorrow’s edition of the Federal Register an interim rule (pdf) implementing section 8116 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which restricts a contractor’s use of mandatory arbitration agreements in certain instances. Specifically, section 8116 bans contractors or subcontractors at any tier that receive funds in excess of $1 million from the appropriations bill from enforcing mandatory, pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” The Secretary of Defense is permitted to waive the applicability of this prohibition to a particular contract or subcontract in the interest of national security. Additionally, the arbitration limitations do not apply to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreement with employees or independent contractors that cannot be enforced in the U.S.

via DoD Issues Rule Restricting Mandatory Arbitration Agreements for Contractors : Washington D.C. Employment Law Update.

E-Discovery In Arbitration | Mediate.com

The business world has undergone a digital transformation, so it is probably not surprising to learn that 90% of all business information is electronically stored. Recent changes in Federal and State statutory schemes, the evolution of case material and the expansion of continuing education programs on the subject of E-discovery reflect this growing reality. Overlooked in the proliferation of commentary on retaining, finding, processing and producing electronically stored information (“ESI”) is the question of how to deal with such discovery in an arbitration setting.

Why are the problems and issues different in court and arbitration? To begin with, despite the pressure in some quarters to mirror litigation, most arbitrators are sensitive to the need to keep arbitration faster and cheaper than court. One important method of doing that is to suppress discovery, a material cause of runaway costs in litigation. While California law has always encouraged full discovery, and Federal Law only ameliorates it in certain specific ways (e.g. the number of interrogatories permitted), the rules of most arbitration tribunals either ignore specific references to discovery or permit very limited discovery (for example, JAMS Rule 17 (b) permits one deposition of an opposing party). Instead, the published arbitration rules generally combine a required voluntary exchange of documents and discretionary discovery to ensure that the parties have what they need to try their case.

While the Federal and State statutory framework for discovery has been modified to address electronic discovery (see, Fed. Rule of Civil Proc. 26 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 2031.010 et seq.), arbitration rules either give a token nod to the existence of ESI (See, JAMS Rule 17 [a]) or ignore it altogether. This leaves the entire issue in the hands of the parties and the Arbitrator. The task in arbitration is to balance the realistic discovery needs of the parties with a rational cost-suppression regime. T

via E-Discovery In Arbitration.

Plan Ahead: Proposed Amendments to Rule 26 Would Extend Work-Product Protection : Electronic Discovery Law

One of the great things about the current rule-making process is the ability to see change on the horizon and adapt accordingly.  This year, absent any unforeseen objection or delay, Rule 26 will be amended to extend the scope of the work-product doctrine to encompass draft expert reports and most communications between experts and counsel.  Currently, the proposed amendment (and all proposed rule amendments, for that matter) is being considered by the Supreme Court.  Pursuant to statute, the Court must transmit prescribed amendments to Congress by May 1st.  Thereafter, absent legislation to reject, modify, or defer the rules, the prescribed amendments will take effect as a matter of law on December 1st.

The proposed amendment to Rule 26 would “apply work-product protection to the discovery of draft reports by testifying expert witnesses, and, with three important exceptions, communications between those witnesses and retaining counsel.”  The exceptions would allow for discovery of communications between the lawyer and expert regarding:  “(1) compensation for the expert’s study or testimony; (2) facts or data provided by the lawyer that the expert considered in forming opinion; and (3) assumptions provided to the expert by the lawyer that the expert relied upon in forming an opinion.”

via Plan Ahead: Proposed Amendments to Rule 26 Would Extend Work-Product Protection : Electronic Discovery Law.

Ontario’s New Rules of Civil Procedure Address Electronic Discovery : Electronic Discovery Law

As of January 1, 2010, Ontario’s new Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, including significant changes to the rules of discovery.  Among the changes/additions is Rule 29.1.03(4) Principles re Electronic Discovery, which states that “In preparing the discovery plan,” as is required by Rule 29.1.03 (1), “the parties shall consult and have regard to the document titled ‘The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery’ developed and available from The Sedona Conference.”  In its explanation of the provisions of the newly effective Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ministry of the Attorney General specifically identified several of the Sedona Principles to be considered:

• Discovery steps should be proportionate.  Parties should consider the nature of litigation; relevance of electronic evidence; importance to adjudication; and the cost and delay that may be imposed to deal with electronic documents.

• Parties should meet and confer as soon as possible regarding identification, preservation, collection and production of electronic documents.

• Parties should be prepared to disclose all relevant electronic documents.

• Parties should agree as early as possible on the format in which electronic information will be produced.

via Ontario’s New Rules of Civil Procedure Address Electronic Discovery : Electronic Discovery Law.

Live from the Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute: some thoughts on Day 1 – The Posse List

Judge Lee Rosenthal gave the keynote titled Is the E-discovery Process Broken, &, If So, Can It be Fixed?

Judge Rosenthal’s opening address set the table for the rest of the 2-day conference.   There were so many notable comments she made but here are are a few:

-  a litigation survey showed only 5% of the parties had used data sampling

- sixty percent of corporations did not have any litigation holds, which can be dangerous

-  the two important recent cases on e-discovery are Twomley and Iqbal

- there has been a lack of success of District Court Judges to control discovery

- proportionality is in the national debate and an adequate set of controls need to be applied to achieve proportionality.  This was the mantra repeated throughout the 2-days of the conference

- The Sedona Conference Proclamation of Co-operation is a good starting point for collaborative e-discovery

.  Effective e-discovery should include a reasonable cost component.  The ACLS and IALAS report discusses 29 principles to promote effective e-discovery including early identification of issues and better control to contain costs, fact based pleading, narrow requests for production, more early discussion and more judge involvement

-  Rule 16 helps expedite discovery and contains items for courts to narrow litigation including active judicial management.  Rule 16 and 26(f) are notably underused

Potential fixes for the system:  there are several pilot programs currently being conducted, notably one in the 7th circuit with the goal of incentivizing early discussion and e-discovery being resolved as an example of Rule 26(f) information sharing and co-operation.

Local rules are not good and a problem because they vary and one size does not fit all.

And the big take-away:  the judges are in a good position to take a long look at e-discovery in May 2010 at the Duke University conference where the FRCP Rules committee will revisit judicial involvement and settlement issues.

via Live from the Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute: some thoughts on Day 1 – The Posse List.