Welcome to Litigation Resources

New E-Discovery Rule Amendments Proposed

Discovery of electronically stored information is a focal point of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that will be published August 15, 2004.

Disseminating the package of proposals in legal newspapers and posting the nearly-200-page report of the Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules starts a six-month period for public comment. Publication also begins a long process that could see the amendments take effect by December 1, 2006. The proposed amendments will be available on the Judiciary's website at www.uscourts.gov.

The changes generally seek to modernize existing rules language to explicitly mention electronic discovery and require the parties to talk about any issues relating to disclosure or discovery early in the lawsuit.

Among the proposed amendments is one that relieves a party from retrieving and producing electronic information that is not reasonably accessible, including information in disaster-recovery back-up tapes, in response to a discovery request.

Another amendment sets out procedures putting a hold on the use of privileged information inadvertently produced until the court has had an opportunity to rule on the underlying issue.

Under a proposed "safe harbor" provision, a party may not be sanctioned under the rules if electronic information has been lost or destroyed as a result of the routine operation of the party's computer system—such as information lost when back-up tapes are recycled—if the party took reasonable steps to preserve the information after it knew the information to be relevant.

All public comment will be considered by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, and be included with its recommendations, anticipated in the spring of 2005, to the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

If approved by the committee, the amendments would be considered by the Judicial Conference at its September 2005 meeting, and forwarded to the Supreme Court. The high court's adoption of new amendments then would be sent to Congress and, if meeting no objections, would take effect December 1, 2006.

 

Authorized Software Dealer for:

Sanction

Concordance

Summation

InData

Recent News/Postings

Court Awards $45,162 in Fees and Costs for Sanctions Motion, to be Shared Equally by Defendants and Their Counsel
August 8, 2006 Posted By PGE
Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

In a follow up to an earlier decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (summarized here), the court evaluated plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion. Plaintiff sought $60,216 in fees and costs, and the SRC Defendants argued that plaintiff was to a maximum amount of only $17,658. The court found plaintiff had included time for reviewing 172 boxes of documents produced late by the SRC Defendants, and that this time was improper since plaintiff’s counsel would have had to review these documents anyway. Since the firm's use of block billing made it impossible to identify the work specifically related to the motion, and separate it from unrelated work, the court reduced the requested total of $60,215.76 by 25 percent. Accordingly, the court granted Phoenix's request for attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the sum of $45,161.82, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm, Mound Cotton. The court further ruled that the SRC Defendants' share “may not be borne by their insurance carriers.” Apparently, Mound Cotton was free to seek reimbursement from its insurance carrier if there was coverage for such.

A copy of the full opinion is available here.