Advice for First-Time Relativity Fest Attendees
October 17, 2017
The GDPR: Five Changes to EU Data Protection Law You Need to Know
November 28, 2017

Key eDiscovery Insights for the Courts and Counsel from the Federal Judicial Center

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) has just updated one of the more useful and practical guides for addressing electronic discovery. Entitled Managing Discovery of Electronic Information, the guide provides common sense direction to judges on how to best manage discovery and move parties toward the ultimate resolution of their dispute. While the publication is designed for judges, practitioners should take note of its recommendations and tailor their advocacy accordingly. Three of the most significant directives from the publication are discussed below.

Active Judicial Management

The most striking aspect of the guide is its emphasis on active judicial management of the discovery process. The resource directs judges to manage their cases by proactively raising issues to be considered by the parties. By so doing, judges can better address the factors that increase costs and cause delays:

The judge needs to work with the lawyers to ensure that planned discovery is reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case and may need to intervene before misunderstandings lead to disputes and create significant cost and delay.

The guide also recommends that judges be quick and decisive in their decision-making. Delays will be inevitable if judges allow discovery differences between the parties to linger without resolution:

When disputes do arise, it is often important to ensure that parties raise the disputes quickly and that the judge resolves the disputes quickly, or the litigation will simply stop in its tracks.

The publication also observes that the demands of eDiscovery are distinct from paper discovery and, as a result, “may require more frequent and intensive judicial involvement” than would have been required in the paper era.

ESI Preservation

The guide also emphasizes the need for active judicial management as a method for either preventing or resolving disputes over ESI preservation. It repeatedly urges judges to unilaterally raise the issue of preservation and encourage the parties to discuss the scope of preservation required for the case.

While the “temporal” scope of preservation (i.e., the relevant time period) is consequential, the more challenging and significant issue is “spatial” preservation. Accordingly to the guide, spatial preservation refers to the nature of relevant ESI to be preserved. Because certain categories of ESI might only be “marginal[ly] relevant,” judges should direct the parties to consider proportionality-based limitations on preservation requirements.

Such limitations may be memorialized in preservation agreements or orders which specify the “categories or sources of ESI [to] be preserved.” These agreements or orders benefit requesting parties by offering greater certainty regarding the scope of preservation. They also safeguard responding parties against unreasonable claims of spoliation. Despite the utility of preservation stipulations or orders, the guide cautions that they must be “narrowly drawn” to prevent unreasonable preservation burdens that “interfere with a party’s day-to-day operations” or result in “preservation steps that are unrealistic or difficult to follow.

The Rule 26(f) Conference

The guide also repeatedly spotlights the need for parties to hold an effective Rule 26(f) conference.  According to the publication, courts should ensure that “a meaningful Rule 26(f) conference take[s] place and that a meaningful discovery plan [is] submitted for use in the Rule 16 conference with the court.” The guide delineates several topics of discussion that can help the parties engage in a “meaningful” 26(f) conference. It also urges Rule 26(f) be considered “an ongoing process” so parties can identify discovery disputes for informal or rapid judicial resolution throughout the litigation. Encapsulating its guidance on this point, the guide observes that Rule 26(f) “should not be viewed solely as a procedural ticket to be punched before formal discovery can begin.”

Beyond these issues, the publication contains various additional guidelines that should prove useful for both courts and counsel. With the FJC having recently published the third version of this resource, it behooves eDiscovery practitioners to gain an understanding of guide’s direction on the issues.

Philip Favro
Philip Favro
Philip Favro acts as a trusted advisor to organizations and law firms on issues surrounding discovery and information governance. Phil provides guidance on data preservation practices, litigation holds, data collection strategies, and ESI search methodologies. In addition, he offers direction to organizations on records retention policies and the need to manage dynamic sources of information found on smartphones, cloud applications, and social networks. Phil is available to serve as a special master on issues related to electronic discovery. Phil is a nationally recognized thought leader and legal scholar on issues relating to the discovery process. His articles have been published in leading industry publications and academic journals and he is frequently in demand as a speaker for eDiscovery education programs. Phil is a member of the Utah and California bars. He actively contributes to Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference where he leads drafting teams and serves as the Steering Committee project manager. Prior to joining Driven, Phil practiced law in Northern California where he advised a variety of clients regarding business disputes and complex discovery issues. He also served as a Judge Pro Tempore for the Santa Clara County Superior Court based in Santa Clara, California.