E-Discovery Still Putting Lawyers Under Pressure, Despite Fewer 37(e) Sanctions
A new survey finds federal courts are granting fewer spoliation sanctions after the FRCP Rule 37(e) amendments. But attorneys aren't start celebrating yet.
March 28, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
According to a report by e-discovery software provider Logikcull, e-discovery sanctions have dropped after the 2015 amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(e). But some lawyers note they are still under pressure to collect and preserve data from rapidly advancing technology.
“The End of Sanctions?: Rules, revisions and growing expertise are 'De-Risking' E-Discovery,” which reviewed nearly 700 federal and civil district court published opinions from 2012 to 2018, found that Rule 37(e) revisions and legal's growing expertise are “de-risking e-discovery.”
Still, some lawyers said the rule, while offering a uniform approach to e-discovery sanctions, doesn't offset the rapidly escalating challenges of e-discovery.
Littler e-discovery counsel and shareholder Denise Backhouse noted that while Rule 37(e) provides a uniform sanctions standard, the risks in e-discovery have only increased with the challenge of appropriately preserving data. “You have to exercise great care because the tools and devices are evolving constantly.”
Jonathan Redgrave, managing partner of D.C.-based law firm Redgrave, agreed. “I don't think it necessarily de-risks the environment, [but] it gave a better framework for parties and counsel to understand what is expected of them in court,” and a guide for preservation and discovery.
Redgrave noted that when added to published opinions, spoliation motions that are sometimes raised in letters or unpublished opinions could provide a more accurate portrait of sanction denial and approval rates.
Based on its own research, the Logikcull report found that since 2016, 36 percent of Rule 37(e) sanction motions were granted in full or part. That's a drop from 2014's peak of 63 percent and 2015's 45 percent of sanction motions being granted.
Although the amount of sanctions issued declined, parties were requesting sanctions—and harsh ones at that. The severest sanctions were sought in 77 percent of all spoliation cases, according to the report. But those motions were denied in whole or in part in 82 percent of cases in 2018.
The report noted that litigants face various hurdles in seeking sanctions, including proving ESI is lost and “cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.” Yet it added that as more data moves to the cloud where it can be shared and duplicated, “we may be reaching a point where the true loss of ESI is incredibly rare.”
To obtain a sanction, parties must also show they experienced a disadvantage from lost ESI, a requirement that can be a significant barrier. What's more, litigants repeatedly face challenges when attempting to prove intent to deprive, given that the 2015 revision doesn't clearly define “intent,” it said.
The report noted that “some of the courts that have had to answer the question of what is sufficient to show intent have instead turned to rather circumstantial forms of proof—sometimes admittedly so.”
While the updates to Rule 37(e) have been in place for nearly four years, a debate still remains over a judge's inherent authority to issue sanctions against discovery misconduct.
The “all-purpose catch-all” of the court's inherent authority has led some to question if the standards established in the amended Rule 37(e) could be undermined. What's more, some also question if the Federal Rules Committee and the congressional rulemaking process can modify a judicial power presumed inherent without violating the separation of powers doctrine, the report said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in U.S., Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250