Flying under the radar: Proposed international e-discovery standard
Creating an international e-discovery standard requires a much higher level of scrutiny and transparency than the passage of typical ISO standards.
October 24, 2013 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
If you are like most litigators, you have probably never heard of the International Organization of Standards (ISO) or the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and you may have had little interest in learning more. That sentiment is likely to change for litigators who routinely deal with cross-border e-discovery and data privacy issues given recent moves toward establishing international e-discovery standards.
What is the potential impact of a new international e-discovery standard?
In April, Law Technology News (LTN) reported that a joint technical committee (JTC) comprised of the ISO and IEC technical committees gave final approval for the development of an international standard for the discovery of electronically stored information. The article explains that the discovery standard envisions a “guidance” standard focusing largely on terminology and process challenges. However, the article goes on to state that there are provisions “to allow the project to morph into a multi-part standard that could provide actual requirements, as well as guidance.”
If adopted, the e-discovery standard could have a significant impact on cross- border litigation and e-discovery generally, considering ISO standards may have the force and effect of law and be used to help establish legal precedent according to the LTN article. The potential sphere of impact is also broad given that over 65 countries participate in this particular JTC subcommittee known as JTC1, Subcommittee 27. In other words, those who deal with multinational litigation might want to monitor these developments since the chosen language could impact their practice both internationally and domestically.
Where do I get a copy of the proposed standard?
Obtaining a draft copy of proposed standards is not as easy as one might suspect. According to the ISO website, there are three different membership categories, and each possesses a different level of access and influence over standards development. Those categories include Full Members (i.e. country representatives), Correspondent Members and Subscriber Members. Only Full Members are able to vote and participate in ISO technical and policy meetings, while the other two categories are relegated to “observing” and keeping “up to date” on ISO's work, respectively. Also noteworthy is the fact that Full and Correspondent Members may sell the standards they help create once those standards are adopted.
Whether or not membership is required in order to simply obtain access to drafts of the proposed standard is unclear. In response to my recent email to the secretary of Subcommittee 27 requesting a copy of the most recent ISO/IED 27050 draft, I was informed that the JTC committee is a closed system that works on a “delegation principle.” The secretary further explained that “[f]or this reason we cannot accept any contributions from your company or other interested parties unless you unless (sic) they become (sic) member of SC 27.”
How do non-members provide feedback on the proposed standard?
The formal route for providing feedback on the proposed international e-discovery standard is to become a member of the aforementioned Joint Technical Committee. The ISO website explains that standards are made by groups of experts called “technical committees,” and the “experts” making up the technical committees are nominated by ISO's national members (aka country representatives). Those interested in getting involved with a technical committee can contact their national member, but membership is not guaranteed.
Similarly, a document on ISO's website titled, “Joining In” explains that the “best opportunity to influence ISO's technical work is offered by direct participation in technical committees, subcommittees and working groups.” The article goes on to explain that individuals may contribute to the work of a committee as an expert or as “heads or members of national delegations.” The document does not provide more details about how to be designated as an “expert” and leaves the impression that non-members can only provide feedback on standards if they are invited to participate in the process.
In the meantime, progress on the international e-discovery standard continues to move forward and a working draft of the proposed standard is scheduled to be processed at the next SC27 meeting in Incheon, Republic of Korea on Oct. 21-25, 2013. Those interested in providing feedback to the United States delegation can contact Project Editor, Eric Hibbard, CTO Security and Privacy at Hitachi Data Systems. Mr. Hibbard serves with Co-Editor Angus Marshall, Principal Scientist, n-gate ltd. Although requests to provide input and obtain draft language may be submitted, there is no guarantee requests to participate in the process by non-members will be honored and the criteria used to vet such requests is not well articulated on ISO's website.
Conclusion
The establishment of standards can be an important part of promoting consistency, improving quality, and measuring success across a wide range of industries and professions. However, creating an international e-discovery standard that could impact multiple countries, industries, and litigation practices across the world requires a much higher level of scrutiny and transparency than the passage of typical ISO standards that are often only geared toward a single industry. That means JTC1, Subcommittee 27 should grant all interested parties the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the proposed standard throughout the process and attorneys should review the proposal on behalf of their clients. Providing a high level of transparency into the process moving forward will serve to increase the support and legitimacy of proposed standard ISO/IED 27050 if and when it is adopted.
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
© 2025 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 AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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