1 Amendments to the Rules to Civil Procedure: Yours to E-Discover Prepared by Christopher M. Bartlett Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP September 25, 2009
2 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure: Yours to E-Discover January 1, 2010 marks the beginning of a new regime for e-discovery in Ontario when amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure 1 come into force. 2 What is E-Discovery? information. 3 E-Discovery is the discovery and production of electronically stored The amendments to the Rules will not introduce discovery of electronic documents in Ontario. In theory, parties have been required to disclose and produce data and information in electronic form since However, in practice, the exchange of electronic documents has often consisted of sending printed copies of s and other electronically stored documents to opposing counsel along with the balance of Schedule A productions. There is currently a disparity between the extent to which documents exist in native electronic forms and members of the bar s comfort level in dealing with electronic documents. The amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure addressing e-discovery is a step towards bridging this gap. Structure of the E-Discovery Amendments Rather than introducing a series of new rules that mandates how parties are to conduct e-discovery, the amendments to the Rules largely take the form of guidelines and principles. This approach stems from a recognition that the Rules must be sufficiently flexible to allow the parties to tailor the scope, preservation, review and production of electronic documents based on the circumstances of 1 R.R.O. 1990, Reg Appendix A includes a complete list of the new rules related to e-discovery. 3 E-Discovery can be defined more precisely to as the process of collecting, preparing, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information in the context of the legal process, as it is defined in The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Glossary: for E-Discovery & Digital Information Management (Second Edition) (2007). 4 The Rules current definitions of document and electronic were introduced in 2001.as part of O. Reg
3 each case. 5 What may legitimately be required in a multi-million dollar claim in which electronic documents are at the heart of the dispute will likely not be justified in a $150,000 claim in which electronic documents are not as important. The new rules that deal with e-discovery reflect three recurring themes: (i) (ii) (iii) proportionality; flexibility; and cooperation. Proportionality The theme of proportionality recurs throughout the e-discovery Rules. Proportionality will be embodied in rules 1.04(1.1) and as a factor to be considered by the courts when determining discovery issues. Subrule 1.04(1.1) provides that: In applying these rules, the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding. Courts will also explicitly be directed to consider proportionality when parties seek an order that a question be answered or a document produced. Courts will be required to consider whether: (a) (b) (c) the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable; the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified; requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice; 5 The Honourable Coulter A. Osborne, Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations (2007) at 61 [Osborne Report]. The Honourable Coulter Osborne also indicated that the bar may not ready for mandatory e-discovery obligations.
4 (d) (e) requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source. Courts are also to consider whether an order to produce documents would result in a party or other person being required to produce an excessive volume of documents. 6 Relating to vs. Relevant to Proportionality also explains why the scope of documentary discovery will be narrowed by amendments to the Rules. The requirement that parties disclose and produce every document relating to any matter in issue will be replaced by mandated disclosure and production of every document relevant to any matter in issue. Relating to had been interpreted by the courts to require production of any document that has a semblance of relevance. 7 The intention of the amendment is to limit the scope of discovery to a simple test of relevance. The adoption of the relevance test extends beyond e-discovery, but its consequences may be greatest in the context of e-discovery. In most actions, each party has hundreds, if not thousands, of s and other electronic documents in its possession, power and control that would meet the semblance of relevance test. Due to the sheer number of electronic documents, the cost of preserving, reviewing and producing these documents would be exponentially greater than when discovery is limited to hard documents. In contrast to this inflated cost, the marginal benefit to the party receiving disclosure of all electronic documents with a semblance of relevance would often 6 Rule (2). 7 Supra note 5 at 57.
5 be minimal. The substitution of a simple relevance test ensures that each party s discovery costs have some relationship to the benefit derived by the other party. Discovery Plans Consistent with the Osborne Report s recommendation that principles may be more effective than rules in the context of e-discovery, one of the few obligations related to e-discovery imposed on parties and counsel by the amendments to the Rules is the requirement that parties agree to a discovery plan. A discovery plan is a document crafted jointly by the parties (and their counsel) that addresses how they will complete discovery. Parties are to determine the most expeditious and cost-effective means of discovery in the circumstances of the particular case. The purpose of the discovery plan is to minimize discovery issues by encouraging parties to reach an understanding on all aspect of discovery early in the litigation process. 8 Discovery plans are mandatory in every action where there is discovery of any kind, including documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, inspection of property, medical examination, and examination for discovery by written questions. Pursuant to rule 29.1, discovery plans must satisfy certain criteria: (i) (ii) they must be writing; they must be agreed to before the earlier of, (a) 60 days after the close of pleadings or such longer period as the parties may agree to; (b) attempting to obtain the evidence; and 8 Supra note 5 at 64.
6 (iii) they must be updated. 9 However, in keeping with the themes of flexibility and cooperation, the Rules do not set out how the parties are to conduct e-discovery. Rather, they merely set out the areas that the parties are required to discuss and seek agreement. Discovery plans must include: (i) the intended scope of documentary discovery under rule 30.02, taking into account relevance, costs and the importance and complexity of the issues in the particular action; (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) dates for the service of each party s affidavit of documents (Form 30A or 30B) under rule 30.03; information respecting the timing, costs and manner of the production of documents by the parties and any other persons; the names of persons intended to be produced for oral examination for discovery under Rule 31 and information respecting the timing and length of the examinations; and any other information intended to result in the expeditious and cost-effective completion of the discovery process in a manner that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the action. 10 The incentive to agree to a discovery plan comes in the form of explicit authorization for the court to refuse to grant relief or to award costs if the parties bring a motion relating to discovery without agreeing to or updating a discovery plan. 9 Rule Rule (3).
7 The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery The parties are required to consult and have regard to The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery when preparing the discovery plan. 11 Sedona Canada is a national committee of lawyers, judges, in-house counsel and government representatives that was created in 2007 to establish e- discovery guidelines for all Canadian jurisdictions. 12 In January 2008, it released a final draft of the Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery (the Sedona Canada Principles ), which were based on national guidelines developed by the Sedona Conference in the United States. There are 12 Sedona Canada Principles that are intended to provide guidance to parties and their counsel on the key e-discovery issues, including the scope, preservation, review and production of electronic documents. 13 Scope Principle 1: Electronically stored information is discoverable. Principle 5: The parties should be prepared to produce relevant electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible in terms of costs and burden. Principle 6: A party should not be required, absent agreement or a court order based on demonstrated need and relevance, to search for or collect deleted or residual electronically stored information. 11 Rule (4). 12 Supra note 5 at The 12 Sedona Canada Principles are set out in full in Appendix B. Sedona Canada has also released commentary in respect of each principle.
8 Preservation/Review Principle 3: As soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties must consider their obligation to take reasonable and good faith steps to preserve potentially relevant electronically stored information. Principle 7: A party may satisfy its obligation to preserve, collect, review and produce electronically stored information in good faith by using electronic tools and processes such as data sampling or searching, or by using selection criteria to collect potentially relevant electronically stored information. Principle 12: The reasonable costs of preserving, collecting and reviewing electronically stored information will generally be borne by the party producing it. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the parties to arrive at a different allocation of costs on an interim basis, by either agreement or court order. Production Principle 8: Parties should agree as early as possible in the litigation process on the format in which electronically stored information will be produced. Parties should also agree on the format, content and organization of information to be exchanged in any required list of documents as part of the discovery process. Principle 9: During the discovery process, parties should agree to or, if necessary, seek judicial direction on measures to protect privileges, privacy, trade secrets and other confidential information relating to the production of electronic documents and data. Proportionality Further, the e-discovery themes of proportionality, flexibility, and cooperation appear throughout the Sedona Canada Principles.
9 Principle 2: In any proceeding, parties should ensure that steps taken in the discovery process are proportionate, taking into account: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the nature and scope of litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues, interest and amounts at stake; the relevance of the available electronically stored information; its importance to the court s adjudication in a given case; and the costs, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information. Cooperation Principle 4: Counsel and parties should meet and confer as soon as practicable, and on an ongoing basis, regarding the identification, preservation, collection, review and production of electronically stored information. By consulting with the Sedona Canada Principles, counsel are expected to be able to arrive at a discovery plan acceptable to all parties. The Sedona Canada Principles provides the framework for discussions (the meet and confer) and the principles that are to be relied upon when determining what is reasonable discovery of electronic documents in the circumstances of the particular case. For example, principle 5 assists when determining the appropriate scope of discover. It provides that parties should be prepared to produce relevant electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible in terms of costs and burden. However, what will be reasonable may vary depending on the amount of the underlying claim and other circumstances particular to that case. The test is whether the quantity, uniqueness and/or quality of data from a source
10 justifies the cost of acquiring that data. 14 A party refusing a request for further production must provide evidence that the requested source of electronic documents is not reasonably accessible because there is no relevant data on it, any relevant data on it is available in another, more accessible, location, or, based on sampling, there may be some relevant data on the requested source, but the cost to obtain it is greater than the value of the data. Sanctions and Other Forums Principle 11: Sanctions should be considered by the court where a party will be materially prejudiced by another party s failure to meet any obligation to preserve, collect, review or produce electronically stored information. The party in default may avoid sanctions if it demonstrates the failure was not intentional or reckless. Principle 10: During the discovery process, parties should anticipate and respect the rules of the forum in which the litigation takes place, while appreciating the impact any decisions may have in related actions in other forums. Although Canadian case law is limited in this area, American jurisprudence suggests that lawyers may expose their clients to sanctions if they fail to properly advise on e-discovery issues. Sanctions can include costs awards, drawing of an adverse inference, and even dismissal of a claim or defence. The sanction imposed is often determined by the effect and, in particular, the prejudice to the other party. For example, in Micron Tech, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. 15, a patent infringement case, the plaintiff had implemented a documentation retention policy as part of a litigation strategy. The policy was implemented, in part, to allow the plaintiff to purge documents from its files that might be discoverable in litigation. 14 The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery (2008) at F.R.D. 136 (D. Del. Jan. 9, 2009).
11 Employees were told to keep documents that strengthened the plaintiff s legal argument and to destroy anything that questioned its position. The court held that the document retention policy was implemented when litigation was reasonably foreseeable, even though no action had yet been started. The sanction imposed by the court was to declare that the subject patents were unenforceable against the defendant. In Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell 16, the plaintiff recording companies alleged that the defendant infringed their copyrights by using a file-sharing program to download and distribute their recordings. Following a court-ordered forensic examination, the court held that the defendant had, among other things, removed the file-sharing program after receiving notice of the lawsuit and used a program to permanently delete all traces of certain files from his computer. Because the defendant s actions made it impossible to decide the case on its merits, the court awarded the plaintiffs default judgment. Finally, lawyers may be exposing themselves to sanctions if they do not properly advise their clients on obligations related to e-discovery. In Green v. McClendon 17, the plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against the purchaser of a piece of artwork. During documentary discovery, the defendant and her counsel repeatedly represented that they had conduced thorough searches and had produced everything in the defendant s possession. The defendant subsequently provided a hardcopy of a relevant spreadsheet and three electronic versions. The defendant also revealed that she arranged for her hard drive to be transferred onto compact discs and the operating system to be reinstalled after the action was launched, which breached the defendant s obligation to preserve all documents stored on her hard drive concerning the artwork in question. The court held that lawyers must take responsibility for ensuring that their clients conduct a comprehensive document search. The court highlighted that it was highly unlikely that counsel actually conducted a thorough WL (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2008) WL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2009).
12 search for relevant documents as repeatedly represented. However, since there was no evidence that any of the destroyed documents would have been unfavourable to the defendant, the court declined to declare an adverse inference and instead awarded costs against the defendant and her lawyer. These cases are not raised to demonstrate the situations when sanctions will be considered in pursuant to the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, in the jurisdiction in which Green v. McClendon, supra, was heard, negligence is sufficient to trigger a spoliation finding. 18 By contrast, principle 11 of the Sedona Canada Principles allows a party in default of its obligations to avoid sanctions if it demonstrates the failure was no intentional or reckless. However, the American courts have a longer history of dealing with e- discovery and have confirmed that parties and their counsel ignore e-discovery obligations at their peril. Conclusion Through guidelines, principles and a few mandatory rules, the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure will introduce a new regime for e- discovery. Although this addition does not yet have the same rigid structure as other areas covered by the Rules, it represents the next step, albeit a tentative one, towards a full integration of e-discovery. The Osborne Report recommends that, [i]n the longer term, the Civil Rules Committee might consider ways to more fully incorporate e-discovery concepts into the Rules of Civil Procedure. This should only occur, in my view, after the profession has had time to familiarize itself with the E-Discovery Guidelines and The Sedona Canada Principles Green v. McClendon, supra, at para Supra note 5 at 64.
13 APPENDIX A: AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RELATED TO E-DISCOVERY INTERPRETATION Proportionality 1.04 (1.1) In applying these rules, the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 2. [ ] NON-APPLICATION OF RULE DISCOVERY RULE 29.1 DISCOVERY PLAN This Rule does not apply to parties who are subject to a discovery plan established by the court under clause (2) (d). O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. DEFINITION In this Rule, DISCOVERY PLAN document has the same meaning as in clause (1) (a). O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. Requirement for Plan (1) Where a party to an action intends to obtain evidence under any of the following Rules, the parties to the action shall agree to a discovery plan in accordance with this rule: Timing 1. Rule 30 (Discovery of Documents). 2. Rule 31 (Examination for Discovery). 3. Rule 32 (Inspection of Property). 4. Rule 33 (Medical Examination). 5. Rule 35 (Examination for Discovery by Written Questions). O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. (2) The discovery plan shall be agreed to before the earlier of, (a) 60 days after the close of pleadings or such longer period as the parties may agree to; and (b) attempting to obtain the evidence. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25.
14 Contents (3) The discovery plan shall be in writing, and shall include, (a) the intended scope of documentary discovery under rule 30.02, taking into account relevance, costs and the importance and complexity of the issues in the particular action; (b) dates for the service of each party s affidavit of documents (Form 30A or 30B) under rule 30.03; (c) information respecting the timing, costs and manner of the production of documents by the parties and any other persons; (d) the names of persons intended to be produced for oral examination for discovery under Rule 31 and information respecting the timing and length of the examinations; and (e) any other information intended to result in the expeditious and cost-effective completion of the discovery process in a manner that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the action. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. Principles re Electronic Discovery (4) In preparing the discovery plan, the parties shall consult and have regard to the document titled The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery developed by and available from The Sedona Conference. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. DUTY TO UPDATE PLAN The parties shall ensure that the discovery plan is updated to reflect any changes in the information listed in subrule (3). O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. FAILURE TO AGREE TO PLAN On any motion under Rules 30 to 35 relating to discovery, the court may refuse to grant any relief or to award any costs if the parties have failed to agree to or update a discovery plan in accordance with this Rule. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. DEFINITION In this Rule, APPLICATION RULE 29.2 PROPORTIONALITY IN DISCOVERY document has the same meaning as in clause (1) (a). O. Reg. 438/08, s This Rule applies to any determination by the court under any of the following Rules as to whether a party or other person must answer a question or produce a document: 1. Rule 30 (Discovery of Documents). 2. Rule 31 (Examination for Discovery).
15 3. Rule 34 (Procedure on Oral Examinations). 4. Rule 35 (Examination for Discovery by Written Questions). O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. CONSIDERATIONS General (1) In making a determination as to whether a party or other person must answer a question or produce a document, the court shall consider whether, (a) the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable; (b) the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified; (c) requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice; (d) requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and (e) the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. Overall Volume of Documents (2) In addition to the considerations listed in subrule (1), in determining whether to order a party or other person to produce one or more documents, the court shall consider whether such an order would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 25. [ ] SCOPE OF DOCUMENTARY DISCOVERY Disclosure RULE 30 DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS (1) Every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action that is or has been in the possession, control or power of a party to the action shall be disclosed as provided in rules to 30.10, whether or not privilege is claimed in respect of the document. O. Reg. 438/08, ss. 26, 68 (1). Production for Inspection (2) Every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action that is in the possession, control or power of a party to the action shall be produced for inspection if requested, as provided in rules to 30.10, unless privilege is claimed in respect of the document. O. Reg. 438/08, ss. 26, 68 (1). [ ]
16 AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENTS Party to Serve Affidavit (1) A party to an action shall serve on every other party an affidavit of documents (Form 30A or 30B) disclosing to the full extent of the party s knowledge, information and belief all documents relevant to any matter in issue in the action that are or have been in the party s possession, control or power. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 27 (1). Contents (2) The affidavit shall list and describe, in separate schedules, all documents relevant to any matter in issue in the action, (a) that are in the party s possession, control or power and that the party does not object to producing; (b) that are or were in the party s possession, control or power and for which the party claims privilege, and the grounds for the claim; and (c) that were formerly in the party s possession, control or power, but are no longer in the party s possession, control or power, whether or not privilege is claimed for them, together with a statement of when and how the party lost possession or control of or power over them and their present location. (3) The affidavit shall also contain a statement that the party has never had in the party s possession, control or power any document relevant to any matter in issue in the action other than those listed in the affidavit. O. Reg. 438/08, ss. 27 (3), 68 (1). Lawyer's Certificate (4) Where the party is represented by a lawyer, the lawyer shall certify on the affidavit that he or she has explained to the deponent, (a) the necessity of making full disclosure of all documents relevant to any matter in issue in the action; and (b) what kinds of documents are likely to be relevant to the allegations made in the pleadings. O. Reg. 653/00, s. 3.
17 APPENDIX B: THE SEDONA CANADA PRINCIPLES 1. Electronically stored information is discoverable. 2. In any proceeding, the parties should ensure that steps taken in the discovery process are proportionate, taking into account (i) the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues, interest and amounts at stake; (ii) the relevance of the available electronically stored information; (iii) its importance to the court s adjudication in a given case; and (iv) the costs, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information. 3. As soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties must consider their obligation to take reasonable and good faith steps to preserve potentially relevant electronically stored information. 4. Counsel and parties should meet and confer as soon as practicable, and on an ongoing basis, regarding the identification, preservation, collection, review and production of electronically stored information. 5. The parties should be prepared to produce relevant electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible in terms of cost and burden. 6. A party should not be required, absent agreement or a court order based on demonstrated need and relevance, to search for or collect deleted or residual electronically stored information. 7. A party may satisfy its obligation to preserve, collect, review and produce electronically stored information in good faith by using electronic tools and processes such as data sampling, searching or by using selection criteria to collect potentially relevant electronically stored information. 8. Parties should agree as early as possible in the litigation process on the format in which electronically stored information will be produced. Parties should also agree on the format, content and organization of information to be exchanged in any required list of documents as part of the discovery process. 9. During the discovery process parties should agree to or, if necessary, seek judicial direction on measures to protect privileges, privacy, trade secrets and other confidential information relating to the production of electronic documents and data. 10. During the discovery process, parties should anticipate and respect the rules of the forum in which the litigation takes place, while appreciating the impact any decisions may have in related actions in other forums. 11. Sanctions should be considered by the court where a party will be materially prejudiced by another party s failure to meet any obligation to preserve, collect, review or produce electronically stored information. The party in default may avoid sanctions if it demonstrates the failure was not intentional or reckless. 12. The reasonable costs of preserving, collecting and reviewing electronically stored information will generally be borne by the party producing it. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the parties to arrive at a different allocation of costs on an interim basis, by either agreement or court order.
The Law On Discovery and Production of Electronic Evidence: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going? Glenn A. Smith June 10, 2009 Discovery On January 1, 2010, Rules will be amended by adding the following
COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA PRACTICE DIRECTION GUIDELINES REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Introduction While electronic documents are included in the definition of document contained
Electronic Discovery The Sedona Canada Principles Steve Accette Peg Duncan Department of Justice April 9, 2008 Page 1 Introduction to the discovery of electronic documents The discovery of electronic information
Page 1 Case Name: Palmerston Grain v. Royal Bank of Canada RE: Palmerston Grain, A Partnership and C & M Seeds Manufacturing Inc., (Plaintiffs), and Royal Bank of Canada, (Defendant)  O.J. No. 4132
CIVIL PRACTICE DIRECTIVE #1 REFERENCE: CIV-PD #1 E-DISCOVERY GUIDELINES Former Reference: Practice Directive #6 issued September 1, 2009 Effective: July 1, 2013 Introduction 1. While electronic documents
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Hong Kong High Court Procedure E-Discovery: Practice Direction Effective September 1, 2014 August 28, 2014 Mandatory application of e-discovery Mandatory application of e-discovery to
The Road to E-Discovery: More Garden Path, Less Mountain Climb? By Daniela Bassan January 2016 1 Any discussion of e-discovery in Canada including how to make the process more efficient and user-friendly
Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have
Comparing E-Discovery in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico 1 By Gavin Foggo, Suzanne Grosso, Brett Harrison & Jose Victor Rodriguez-Barrera Although recent amendments to the federal
A BNA, INC. DIGITAL DISCOVERY & E-EVIDENCE! VOL. 7, NO. 11 232-235 REPORT NOVEMBER 1, 2007 Reproduced with permission from Digital Discovery & e-evidence, Vol. 7, No. 11, 11/01/2007, pp. 232-235. Copyright
125 In-House Solutions to the E-Discovery Conundrum Retta A. Miller Carl C. Butzer Jackson Walker L.L.P. April 21, 2007 www.pointmm.com I. OVERVIEW OF THE RULES GOVERNING ELECTRONICALLY- STORED INFORMATION
BEST PRACTICES FOR PREPARING YOUR BUSINESS FOR E-DISCOVERY I. Background The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for document production in the discovery process. Until recently, all types of documents
MARCH 7, 2007 E-Discovery: The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure A Practical Approach for Employers By Tara Daub and Christopher Gegwich News of the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
PRACTICE DIRECTION NUMBER 11 OF 2012 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPERVISED CASE LIST 1. Practice Direction No 6 of 2000 is hereby repealed. 2. This Practice Direction is intended to (a) provide some explanation
INTERNET ISSUES: PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS NEW E-DISCOVERY RULES William R. Denny Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP September 26, 2006 Agenda What is a Trade Secret? Tracking Down the Anonymous Blogger Strategies
E-DISCOVERY & PRESERVATION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE Ana Maria Martinez April 14, 2011 This presentation does not present the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. This presentation is not legal advice.
E-Discovery: New to California 1 Patrick O Donnell and Martin Dean 2 Introduction The New Electronic Discovery Act The new Electronic Discovery Act, Assembly Bill 5 (Evans), has modernized California law
1 PROFESSIONALS MILLER CANFIELD LAW FIRM B. Jay Yelton III Michigan's New E-Discovery Rules Provide Ways to Reduce the Scope and Burdens of E-Discovery To a large extent Michigan's new e-discovery rules
DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP Presented by Frank H. Gassler, Esq. Written by Jeffrey M. James, Esq. Over the last few years,
Defending Against Negligent Inspections Claims: Best Practices to Reduce Costly Actions Andrew J. Heal, LL.M. 416.583.5901 email@example.com Larry Ptashynski Manager of Inspections City of Vaughan 905.832.8511
Law Society of Saskatchewan Queen s Bench Rules of Court webinars Part 1: Overview Reché McKeague Director of Research, Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan January 28, 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...
Electronic Discovery: Litigation Holds, Data Preservation and Production April 27, 2010 Daniel Munsch, Assistant General Counsel John Lerchey, Coordinator for Incident Response 0 E-Discovery Rules Federal
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Professors:Mark Austrian Christopher Racich Fall 2014 Introduction The ubiquitous use of computers, the
William Mitchell E-Discovery Symposium Outlaw v. Willow Oral Argument Motions for Sanctions Mary T. Novacheck, Esq. Partner Bowman and Brooke LLP Outlaw's Motion: Cost Shift Vendor Fees to Willow Prior
A Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients by: Jennifer Loeb Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.891.7766 firstname.lastname@example.org Edited by: Larry Munn Clark Wilson LLP
UNDERSTANDING E DISCOVERY A PRACTICAL GUIDE 1 What is ESI? Information that exists in a medium that can only be read through the use of computers Examples E-mail Word Documents Databases Spreadsheets Multimedia
Article originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer Electronic Discovery in Litigation By Douglas P. Jeremiah, P.E., Esq. Your firm is involved in litigation and you get the
A. Principles For Document Management Policies Arthur Anderson, LLD v. U.S., 544 U.S. 696 (2005) ( Document retention policies, which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the
Metadata, Electronic File Management and File Destruction By David Outerbridge, Torys LLP A. Metadata What is Metadata? Metadata is usually defined as data about data. It is a level of extra information
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,
RULE 63 DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW Definitions (1) In this rule, Application claim for relief includes a child support order, a spousal support order, a custody order, a property order, and corollary relief
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Discovery Managing Discovery Of Electronically Stored Information Under Proposed Amendments To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure by Michael C. Lynch and Lystra Batchoo Kelley
November 2006 New E-Discovery Rules: Is Your Company Prepared? By Maureen O Neill, Kirby Behre and Anne Nergaard On December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( FRCP ) concerning
Book Review THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERY HANDBOOK: FORMS, CHECKLISTS, AND GUIDELINES by Sharon D. Nelson, Bruce A. Olson and John W. Simek American Bar Association 2006 745 pp. Reviewed by William
Federal Rule Changes Affecting E-Discovery Are Almost Here - Are You Ready This Time? An Overview of the Rules, History and Commentary Absent congressional action to reject, modify or defer proposed amendments
E-Discovery Guidance for Federal Government Professionals Summer 2014 Allison Stanton Director, E-Discovery, FOIA, & Records Civil Division, Department of Justice Adam Bain Senior Trial Counsel Civil Division,
Electronic Discovery L. Amy Blum, Esq. UCLA University of California, Los Angeles 1 Topics Not Covered Best practices for E-mail E use and retention in the ordinary course of business Records Disposition
Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Electronic Discovery effective Dec. 1, 2006 Copyright David A. Devine GROH EGGERS, LLC Rules amended: 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 & 45 Sources of information: Rules
PROPOSED ELECTRONIC DATA DISCOVERY GUIDELINES FOR THE MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHONOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JUDGES What follows are some general, suggested guidelines for addressing different areas
MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Cyber Tech & E-Commerce The Duty To Preserve Data Stored Temporarily In Ram: Is The Sky Really Falling? by J. Alexander Lawrence Morrison & Foerster New York, New York A commentary
Vincent T. Chang, Chair Federal Courts Committee New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 March 20, 2013 COMMENTS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION FEDERAL COURTS
Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,
MATERIALS / MATÉRIAUX 2012 Competition Law Fall Conference Conférence annuelle d'automne 2012 en droit de la concurrence ONTARIO E-DISCOVERY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MODEL DOCUMENT #1: DISCOVERY AGREEMENT
Legal Arguments & Response Strategies for E-Discovery The tools to craft strategic discovery requests & mitigate the risks and burdens of production. Discussion Outline Part I Strategies for Requesting
(129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT To enact sections 2307.951, 2307.952, 2307.953, and 2307.954 of the Revised Code to require claimants in asbestos tort actions
Be Prepared: How The New Changes To The FRCP Affect Information Governance Presented by John Isaza, Esq., FAI CEO, Information Governance Solutions, LLC Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:00 p.m. (PDT) Your Presenters
Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia Kenneth J. Withers, Esq. Deputy Executive Director,
Factors to Consider When Handling a Long Term Disability Benefits Case Several issues may arise in the course of a lawsuit for long term disability benefits. This paper provides strategic suggestions on
Electronic Discovery How can I be prepared? September 2010 Presented by Brian Wilkinson, Director of ediscovery & Computer Forensics email@example.com 410-659-3473 Table of Contents Page 1 Electronic
Applied AppliedDiscovery Discovery White WhitePaper Paper Elements ElementsofofaaGood GoodDocument Document Retention RetentionPolicy Policy ByBy Courtney Courtney Ingraffi Ingraffi a Barton, a Barton,
E-Discovery in Employment Litigation: Making Practical, Yet Defensible Decisions 11 E-Discovery in Employment Litigation: Making Practical, Yet Defensible Decisions Introduction Much has been said about
Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.
FINEX NORTH AMERICA NEWSLETTER May 2012 www.willis.com In this Newsletter we consider the expansive nature of indemnification under Delaware Law, potentially significant changes to the rules of ediscovery,
The Ethics of Pre-Trial Discovery Discovery Ethics Course Plan I. Pre-Trial Discovery II. General Ethical Rules and Personal Mores Governing Discovery III. Ethical Considerations for Obtaining Informal
E-DISCOVERY: BURDENSOME, EXPENSIVE, AND FRAUGHT WITH RISK If your company is involved in civil litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding preservation and production of electronic documents
The Process of a Typical Commercial Case Canada (Québec) Litigation Guide IBA Litigation Committee Christopher Richter firstname.lastname@example.org Eric Bédard email@example.com Woods LLP 2000 McGill College
The Redgrave Roundtable New Proposed Federal Discovery Rules: What They Say & What Is Next Today s Speakers Jonathan Redgrave Partner, Redgrave LLP Thomas Allman Adjunct Professor, University of Cincinnati
REINHART E-NEWSLETTER ATTORNEYS: ROBERT K. SHOLL, CHAIR JEFFREY P. CLARK JOHN H. ZAWADSKY LYNN M. STATHAS DAVID J. SISSON CHRISTOPHER P. BANASZAK ROBERT J. MUTEN DARYLL J. NEUSER SUSAN B. WOODS JENNIFER
E-Discovery Update: Essentials for In-house Counsel FM Panelists: Guest Panelist: David Rosenbaum Kelly Inglese Dera Nevin Managing Counsel, e-discovery, TD Bank Group Toronto Fasken Martineau Symposium
Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq. 1901. Short title This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 1902. Definitions As used in this chapter: (1) "Abandoned"
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: 8.D DATE: March 15, 2007 ****************************************************************************** SUBJECT: Electronic Records Discovery Electronic records management
MATERIALS / MATÉRIAUX 2012 Competition Law Fall Conference Conférence annuelle d'automne 2012 en droit de la concurrence E-discovery The Basics: From Proportionality to Technology Assisted Review Susan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Filed: June 20, 2008 ORDER The Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure annually
2015 ANNUAL MEETING Vancouver, BC September 11, 2015 Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A New Scope of Discovery? 2010 DUKE CONFERENCE May 10-11 Duke Law School 200 Participants
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
ESI: Federal Court An introduction to the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information In September 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously approved
Everything You Wanted to Know About ESI and E-Discovery but Were Afraid to Ask Jason M. Pistacchio Presented By: Gregory S. Johnson Attorney Attorney/Legal Technologist Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP Paine
LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE COMMENT to the ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES THOUGHTS ON THE NOTE TO PROPOSED RULE 37(e) April 25, 2014 Lawyers for Civil Justice ( LCJ ) respectfully submits the following
ESTATE PLANNING Ian M. Hull and Nick Esterbauer Ian M. Hull Tel: (416) 369-7826 Fax: (416) 369-1517 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Nick Esterbauer Tel: (416) 640-4818 Fax: (416) 369-1517 Email: email@example.com
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013 By: Representative Turner To: Judiciary A HOUSE BILL NO. 529 1 AN ACT TO REQUIRE CLAIMANTS IN ASBESTOS TORT ACTIONS TO MAKE 2 CERTAIN DISCLOSURES PERTAINING
Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules
Predictability in E-Discovery Presented by: John G. Roman, Jr. National Manager, Practice Group Technology Services Nixon Peabody LLP Tom Barce Assistant Director of Practice Support Fulbright & Jaworski
Electronic Discovery: Understanding Preservation Obligations, the Potential for Cost-Shifting, and Current Developments Electronic Discovery - What s All The Talk About? November 2004 1313 North Market
12 May 2014 Geoff Bowyer T 03 9607 9497 F 03 9607 5270 firstname.lastname@example.org Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 By Email to: email@example.com
Any and all documents Meets Electronically Stored Information: Discovery in the Electronic Age Panel Members Judge Ronald L. Buch, Moderator Panelists The Honorable Paul W. Grimm U.S. District Court for
ESI Preservation in Employment Litigation: Counsel s Guide to New FRCP ediscovery Amendments FEATURED FACULTY: Patricia E. Antezana, Counsel, Reed Smith LLP PAntezana@ReedSmith.com Steven C. Bennett, Partner,
Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination
How to Manage Costs and Expectations for Successful E-Discovery: Best Practices Mukesh Advani, Esq., Advisory Board Member, UBIC North America, Inc. UBIC North America, Inc. 3 Lagoon Dr., Ste. 180, Redwood
CIVIL MOTION PANEL STATEMENT OF CONSENSUS Current As of November 2, 2004 (Authorities Updated 02/2007) The Civil Motions Panel of the Circuit Court is a voluntary group of judges who agree to take on the
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES HILL, JR., No. 381, 2011 Plaintiff Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County RICHARD P.
White Paper Series February 2006 THE INCREASING RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IN E-DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE The law is continuously carving out and redefining the boundaries of electronic document
Case:-cv-0-EMC Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, No. C-- EMC 0 v. JOE NAVASCA, Plaintiff, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION
Case :0-cv-00-GMN-LRL Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 Michael J. McCue (NV Bar No. 0 Nikkya G. Williams (NV Bar No. Telephone: (0-0 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys for Defendants Jan Klerks and Stichting Wolkenkrabbers
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
Legal Developments in ediscovery: Implications for Security Management Richard S. Swart and Robert F. Erbacher Utah State University firstname.lastname@example.org Robert.Erbacher@usu.edu Abstract This paper defines
by Samantha Ip Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.643.3172 email@example.com D/RJR/682791.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION...1 B. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF LIABILITY INSURANCE...1 1. GENERAL LIABILITY
1. NOTIFICATION OF USE OF DSI DISPUTE SOLUTIONS, INC. ARBITRATION RULES Any company intending to incorporate these rules or to refer to the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services of Dispute Solutions,
Data Preservation Duties and Protocols November 2008 HOU:2858612.3 Discussion Outline I. The Differences Between Electronic and Paper Discovery II. The Parameters of Electronic Discovery III. Rule 37(e)
Litigation Holds: Ten Tips in Ten Minutes Stephanie F. Stacy Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, LLP 1248 O Street, Suite 600 Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 firstname.lastname@example.org Introduction A litigation
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.