Body of evidence
There is a popular aphorism that a dyers hand is always stained by the elements he works with. Likewise, it seems that a solicitor's reputation for probity can easily be tainted by basic flaws in the handling of electronic disclosure. The recurring theme in most cases where solicitors have given inadequate e-disclosure is that the defaulting parties prepared poorly and made nominal efforts to agree e-disclosure parameters with the opposition. This unilateral approach contravenes the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and has been rejected by the courts. The recent spate of rulings on e-disclosure failures has been covered widely by various interest groups, each promoting parochial solutions. What is missing is a recursive framework for early discussions as required by the CPR.
October 06, 2009 at 02:14 AM
5 minute read
Electronic evidence is likely to dominate future litigation. John Okonkwo looks at a number factors to be considered when drawing up an efficient e-disclosure framework
There is a popular aphorism that a dyers hand is always stained by the elements he works with. Likewise, it seems that a solicitor's reputation for probity can easily be tainted by basic flaws in the handling of electronic disclosure. The recurring theme in most cases where solicitors have given inadequate e-disclosure is that the defaulting parties prepared poorly and made nominal efforts to agree e-disclosure parameters with the opposition. This unilateral approach contravenes the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and has been rejected by the courts. The recent spate of rulings on e-disclosure failures has been covered widely by various interest groups, each promoting parochial solutions. What is missing is a recursive framework for early discussions as required by the CPR.
The triage role of solicitors
The Practice Direction (PD) to Part 31 of the CPR requires parties to make an early, good faith attempt at specific line drawing on e-disclosure. The idea of having productive discussions on a technical subject may be daunting, but as Justice Morgan and US Federal Judge Facciola have pointed out, the ability to disclose electronic documents and to declare to the court that you have fully done so is within what is expected of a lawyer of ordinary competence. This duty, owed to the court and to the client, cannot be outsourced. At the minimum, solicitors need to know enough to be able to supervise the work of vendors and to explain the variables and methodologies that underpin key decisions.
A scalable framework
Since it can be expected that electronic evidence will constitute much, if not most, of the evidence used in future litigation, there are mandatory legal and technical issues that parties should discuss early on. The following framework may provide useful guidance.
1. Agree a structure for discussions
The PD provides valuable guidelines for transparency and consistency between the parties. Simply set out your requirements, invite the opposition to do the same, and arrange a series of meetings to thrash out any differences. Parties must come prepared to discuss in detail the parameters of disclosable electronically stored information (ESI) and avoid overly broad requests. Getting expert guidance very early is invaluable to contain costs and court sanctions.
2. Know your sources and location of ESI
Having the right data available and proving its authenticity can be the difference between an early settlement and an expensive trial. Each party should be familiar with their enterprise data map and come prepared to speak openly and without technical distortion about their information management architecture and data policies, as well as a road map of how key players store information. Remember that social networking tools and portable media devices now hold huge amounts of data and are invaluable in establishing timelines, relationships and exceptions to hearsay rules.
3. Negotiate limits on preservation
The common law duty to preserve relevant ESI commences once litigation is reasonably foreseeable. Since the triggering events can, and often do, occur long before action is filed, you should help clients to implement an effective legal hold. You can then negotiate limits on preservation. Getting an aligned handle on the location and preservation of relevant ESI will enhance each party's ability to gather enough of the relevant facts, law and evidence in order to develop a litigation or settlement strategy.
4. Search terms and methodologies
The rules require parties to carry out a reasonable and proportionate search. The problems of volume, duplication and unstructured content underscores the lack of consistency between parties in relation to the level of searches carried out. Recent decisions make it clear that the courts expect solicitors to be conscientious in handling search issues. Thus, parties should perform due diligence in choosing a particular search methodology. They should agree a focused range of keywords and use date ranges or time slices to gauge accuracy. They should also explore more accurate concept search tools.
5. Cost sharing and cost shifting
The cost of e-disclosure can outweigh the value of the damages claimed. As the courts can contain costs by limiting the scope of e-disclosure, parties are better off reaching mutual agreement than waiting for unpredictable court directions. They can use negotiated thresholds to shift or share costs, and to overcome traditional chokepoints. To support meaningful negotiations, parties should conduct a basic univariate analysis of their ESI to see how each variable (e.g. keywords, conversion, etc.) will affect the cost picture, and if some variables can be tweaked to stay within a proportionate cost band.
6. Privileged and confidential material
It is inevitable that in the course of producing thousands of electronic files some confidential or privileged material might slip through. To avoid the risk that some courts might allow inadvertently produced privileged documents to be used in litigation, you should negotiate a claw-back agreement or obtain an undertaking which stipulates that inadvertent production of privileged documents will not waive an applicable privilege.
7. Form of production
The Litigation Support Technology Group (LiST) has produced a data exchange protocol to guide parties in this area. However, parties should pay particular attention to metadata disclosure which can be affected by the form of production.
8. Court directions
Parties should seek directions as soon as necessary. Ultimately, a meticulous e-disclosure order, based mostly on party agreement, can streamline the process and reduce costs.
John Okonkwo is a dual-qualified US attorney and UK solicitor (non-practising) at litigation consultancy Ducain Forbes.
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 AllIs KPMG’s Arizona ABS Strategy a Turning Point in U.S. Law? What London’s Experience Reveals
5 minute readKPMG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Court Rejects San Francisco's Challenge to Robotaxi Licenses
- 2'Be Prepared and Practice': Paul Hastings' Michelle Reed Breaks Down Firm's First SEC Cybersecurity Incident Disclosure Report
- 3Lina Khan Gives Up the Gavel After Contentious 4 Years as FTC Chair
- 4Allstate Is Using Cell Phone Data to Raise Prices, Attorney General Claims
- 5Epiq Announces AI Discovery Assistant, Initially Developed by Laer AI, With Help From Sullivan & Cromwell
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