Nelson: You were recently quoted in a Law Technology News (LTN) article written by Evan Koblentz as saying, “I don’t see a need to amend the rules” because these rules haven’t been around long enough to see what happens.  Isn’t almost five years long enough?

Judge Hedges: No.  For the simple reason that both attorneys and judges continue to need education on the 2006 amendments and, more particularly, they need to understand the technologies that create and store electronic information.  The amendments establish a framework within which attorneys and judges make daily decisions on discovery.  I have not seen any objective evidence that the framework is somehow failing and needs further amendment.

Nelson: You also said the “big problem” is that people don’t talk enough.  What did you mean?  Hasn’t the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation made a difference?

Judge Hedges: The centerpiece of the 2006 amendments (at least in my view) is Rule 26(f).  I think it is fair to say that the legal community’s response to 26(f) has been, to say the least, varied. Civil actions with large volumes of ESI that may be discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) cry out for extensive 26(f) meet-and-confer discussions that may take a number of meetings and require the presence of party representatives from, for example, IT.  There is an element of trust required between adversary counsel (with the concurrence of the parties they represent) that may be difficult to establish – but some cooperation is necessary to make 26(f) work.  Overlay that reality with our adversary system and the duty of attorneys to zealously advocate on behalf of their clients and you can understand why cooperation isn’t always a top priority for some attorneys.

However, “transparency” in discussing ESI is essential, along with advocacy and the need to maintain appropriate confidentiality. That’s where the Sedona Conference Proclamation can make a big difference. Has the Proclamation done that? It’s too early to reach a conclusion on that question, but the Proclamation is often cited and, as education progresses in eDiscovery, I am confident that the Proclamation will be recognized as a means to realize the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of litigation, as articulated under Rule 1.

Nelson: You also mentioned that the Federal Rules Advisory Committee might be running afoul of the Rules Enabling Act.  Can you explain?

Judge Hedges: There is a distinction between “procedural” and “substantive” rules.  The Rules Enabling Act governs the adoption of the former.  Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is an example of a substantive rule that was proposed by the Judicial Conference.  However, since Rule 502 is a rule dealing with substantive privilege and waiver issues, it had to be enacted into law through an Act of Congress.  I am concerned that proposals to further amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may cross the line from procedural to substantive.  I am not prepared to suggest at this time, however, that anything I have seen has crossed the line.  Stay tuned.

Nelson: If you had to select one of the three options currently being considered (see page 264), which option would you select and why?

Judge Hedges: To start, I would not choose option 1, which presumes that the Rules can reach pre-litigation conduct consistent with the Rules Enabling Act.  My concern here is also that, in the area of electronic information, a too-specific rule risks “overnight” obsolescence, just as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, enacted in 1986, is considered by a number of commentators to be, at best, obsolescent.  Note also that I did not use the word “stored” when I mentioned electronic information, as courts have already required that so-called ephemeral information be preserved.  Nor would I choose option 2.  Absent seeing more than the brief description of the category on page 264, it seems to me that option 2 is likely to do nothing more than be a restatement of the existing law on when the duty to preserve is “triggered.”

So, by default, I am forced to choose option 3.  I presume a rule would say something like, “sanctions may not be imposed on a party for loss of ESI (or “EI”) if that party acted reasonably in making preservation decisions.”  There are a number of problems here. First, in a jurisdiction which allows the imposition of at least some sanction for negligence, all the rule would likely do is be interpreted to foreclose “serious” sanctions. Isn’t that correct? Or is the rule intended to supersede existing variances in the law of sanctions?  At that point, does the rule become “substantive”?   Second, how will “reasonableness” be defined?  Reasonableness supposes the existence of a duty – in this case, a duty to preserve.  For example, is there a duty to preserve ephemeral data that a party knows is relevant?  We come back full circle to where we began.

Remember, Rule 37(f) (now 37(e)) was intended to provide some level of protection against the imposition of sanctions, just as the categories are intended to.  Right?  And five years later 37(e) remains defined variously to be a “safe harbor” or a “lighthouse” by some lawyers such as Jonathan Redgrave or an “uncharted minefield” by others like me.

Nelson: What about heightened pleading standards after the Iqbal and Twombly decisions?  Do these decisions have any relevance to electronic discovery and the topic at hand?

Judge Hedges: Let me begin by saying that I am no fan of Twombly or Iqbal. The decisions, however well intended, have led to undue cost and delay all too often.  Not only is motion to dismiss practice costly for parties, but it imposes great burdens on the United States Courts and, as often as not, leads to at least one other round of motion practice as plaintiffs are given leave to re-plead.  All the while, parties have preservation obligations to fulfill and, in the hope of saving expense, discovery is often stayed until a motion is “finally” decided.  I would like to see objective evidence of the delay and cost of this motion practice (and I expect that the Administrative Office of the United States has statistical evidence already).  I would also like to see objective evidence from defendants distinguishing between the cost of motion practice and later discovery costs.

Putting all that aside, and if I had to accept one option, I would choose to allow some discovery that is integrated to the motion practice.  First, even without the filing of a responsive pleading, there should be a 26(f) meet-and-confer to discuss, if nothing else, the nature and scope of preservation and the possibility of securing a Rule 502(d) order. Second, while I have serious concerns about “pre-answer discovery” for a number of reasons, I would have the parties make 26(a)(1) disclosures while a motion to dismiss is pending or leave to re-plead has been granted in order to address the likely “asymmetry of information” between a plaintiff and a moving defendant.  Once the disclosures are made, I would allow the plaintiff to secure some information identified in the disclosures to allow re-pleading and perhaps obviate the need for continued motion practice.

All of this would, of course, require active judicial management.  And one would hope that Congress, which seems so interested in conserving resources, would recognize the vital role of the United States Courts in securing justice for everyone and give adequate funding to the Courts.

In NDLON Plaintiffs submitted identical twenty-one page FOIA requests to each of the four defendant agencies.  And, after some initial missed deadlines and judicial intervention, Plaintiffs sent the defendants a proposed protocol that requested a specific format for the production of electronic records.  Significantly, the proposed protocol was based on the “format demands routinely made by two government entities-the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice Criminal Division” (invoking the old “good for the goose” argument).

Before ruling on the protocol, Judge Scheindlin examined the parties’ efforts to cooperate and she was uniformly underwhelmed:

“As far as I can tell from the record submitted by the parties, the equivalent of a Rule 26(f) conference, at which the parties are required to discuss form of production, was not held and no agreement regarding form of production was ever reached. Nor was a dispute regarding form of production brought to the Court for resolution.”

In evaluating controlling law, the fact that “[n]o federal court has yet recognized that metadata is part of a public record as defined in FOIA” didn’t stop Judge Scheindlin from looking to both state law and the FRCP for guidance.  Next, she relied on Aguilar, which noted that the Sedona Conference abandoned an earlier presumption against the production of metadata in recognition of “‘the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party ….’”  She then foreshadowed her subsequent ruling by concluding: “[b]y now, it is well accepted, if not indisputable, that metadata is generally considered to be an integral part of an electronic record.”

The Government, not surprisingly didn’t go down without a fight, arguing that “metadata is substantive information that must be explicitly requested and then reviewed by an agency for possible exemptions.”  In concert they also claimed that “if the requirements of FOIA and the requirements of the Rules conflict, FOIA must trump the Rules.”  Judge Scheindlin wasn’t persuaded, holding that:

“[T]here is no need to decide this question because FOIA does not conflict with the Rules. FOIA is silent with respect to form of production, requiring only that the record be provided in ‘any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.’… Defendants’ productions to date have failed to comply with Rule 34or with FOIA.”

In terms of the remedy for the government’s failure, she did cut them some slack:  “Because no metadata was specifically requested in Plaintiffs’ July 23 e-mail, and because this is an issue of first impression, I will not require Defendants to re-produce all of the records with metadata.”  But for future productions she held that the bulk of the ESI be produced in “TIFF image format but with corresponding load files, Bates stamping, and the preservation of “parent-child” relationships (i.e. the association between an attachment and its parent record)” citing the metadata list below for non-email files.

1. Identifier
2. File Name
3. Custodian
4. Source Device
5. Source Path
6. Production Path
7. Modified Date
8. Modified Time
9. Time Offset Value

So, here’s the rub.  The legal populous, not surprisingly, likes bright line rules.  So, when Judge Scheindlin writes (in Footnote 41):  “[w]hile not necessary to the holding in this case, I believe that these are the minimum fields of metadata that should accompany any production of a significant collection of ESI” it’s easy to see how the above nine fields may become a blunt instrument wielded haphazardly by requesting parties.   Not surprisingly, Judge Scheindlin is aware of her mantle and further tries to caveat her holding (in footnote 44):

“To be clear, my Order requiring the use of this Proposed Protocol for future productions-as amended by the specific metadata fields I have required and by the options I have offered the parties regarding the form of production for spreadsheets-is limited to this case. I am certainly not suggesting that the Proposed Protocol should be used as a standard production protocol in all cases. The production of individual static images on a small scale, where no automated review platform is likely to be used, may be perfectly reasonable depending on the scope and nature of the litigation.

The impact of footnote 44 was top of mind when I recently spoke to Fmr. Judge Ron Hedges who chimed in:

“Attorneys must confer with regard to production requirements, as they should before bringing any dispute before a federal court. Moreover, attorneys should recognize that, as Judge Scheindlin said in footnote 44, that the selection of metadata fields to request are case-dependent.  Any attempt to arrive at a ‘universal’ or ‘bright line’ standard for production of metadata ignores the text of Rule 34(b) and the bargaining that occurs in meets-and-confers, and the unique aspects of individual civil actions.”

Despite agreeing with Judge Hedges’ sentiment, the main question in my mind will be whether footnote 44 is given its due weight going forward.  My concern is that, as is oft discussed with her Pension Committee decision, parties may hone in on the bright line test and miss the nuances.  While it’s easy to argue against the folly of this thinking, it may not stop it from happening in the near term.

Finally, in another shout out to the Cooperation Proclamation, Judge Scheindlin takes a swipe at counsel, who forced her to rule on an “e-discovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to ‘meet and confer,’ ‘cooperate’ and generally make every effort to ‘communicate’ as to the form in which ESI would be produced.”

“The quoted words are found in opinion after opinion and yet lawyers fail to take the necessary steps to fulfill their obligations to each other and to the court. While certainly not rising to the level of a breach of an ethical obligation, such conduct certainly shows that all lawyers-even highly respected private lawyers, Government lawyers, and professors of law-need to make greater efforts to comply with the expectations that courts now demand of counsel with respect to expensive and time-consuming document production. Lawyers are all too ready to point the finger at the courts and the Rules for increasing the expense of litigation, but that expense could be greatly diminished if lawyers met their own obligations to ensure that document production is handled as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. This can only be achieved through cooperation and communication.”

In the end, NDLON will continue to generate a ton of discussion (as did Zubulake and Pension Committee).  While this decision won’t single-handedly end the metadata discussion it will hopefully serve as a launching point for more clarity down the road.  For this, practitioners on both sides of the debate should be thankful.

“[F]or lawyers and judges to dare opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to tread.”

Despite, legions of articles and blogs on the topic, at least certain portions of the bench haven’t taken heed.  In the case In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47636 (June, 5, 2009) (hereinafter “Zurn“), U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery receives points for understanding some basic e-discovery tenants around recall and precision, but then mysteriously goes where “angels fear to tread” by suggesting her own search terms.

Examining the case facts in more detail,…  Zurn is a class action products liability case where discovery was bifurcated (as is often the case – see Spieker v. Quest Cherokee) to first cover the class “certification” component.  Initially, the Magistrate partially closed the door on broader ESI discovery, stating that “while ESI may prove to be relevant to the first stage of discovery, we cannot meaningfully make that prediction now, and require the parties to engage in what could be vastly more expensive, and yet utterly futile, discovery.”  However, the Magistrate didn’t shut the door entirely, suggesting that “should the parties uncover voids in the information disclosed in hard copy form, they are . . . at liberty to press for further discovery including electronically stored information.”

Despite complying with Sedona’s Cooperation Proclamation (“The parties have worked amicably throughout the discovery process”) opposing counsel still got to loggerheads when plaintiff found “voids” in the initial paper productions via third party discovery.  The plaintiff brought a motion to compel ESI discovery and the defendant objected, stated two primary arguments: (1) the Magistrate earlier ruled out ESI discovery and (2) if they had to perform ESI discovery it would be unduly burdensome/expensive.

Judge Montgomery summary rejected the first argument, but was concerned about the burden surrounding the proposed ESI discovery.  Here, the calculations get a bit confusing, but plaintiff’s request would have resulted in 361 gigabytes of ESI from employee email sources, as well as shared “J” and “K” drives.  The defendant multiplied the gigabyte number by 75,000 pages per gigabyte, which would have required “approximately seventeen weeks and cost $ 1,150,000, exclusive of vendor collection and processing costs, to review and process the data.”  Assuming a rather modest $1,000 per gigabyte for processing and hosting costs, defendants could’ve added another $400,000 for the project.

Ultimately, the court was not persuaded by the supporting affidavits, nor the attorney’s representations about the resulting burden:

“It is unclear whether Zurn’s cost and time numbers are based on a review of 27 million pages of documents, the 3.6 million pages of documents limited to the J Drive and custodians’ emails, or a smaller sample of document pages likely to be flagged as a result of a search for certain relevant terms pro-posed by Plaintiffs. The affidavit of Ms. Freestone, an attorney and not an expert on document search and retrieval, is not compelling evidence that the search will be as burdensome as Zurn avers.”

The 361 gigabytes apparently resulted from “hits” corresponding to plaintiff’s 26 search terms.  The court correctly identified that those terms had precision issues (“many of Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms will likely produce a large number of ‘hits’ that have limited relevance in the case.”)

Unfortunately, in an effort to increase the search precision, the Judge did not take heed of Judge Grimm’s warning and surprisingly took matters into her own hands: “the Court will limit the search to the following fourteen terms based on the likelihood that they will  produce relevant documents without including a vast number of documents that are likely irrelevant to the litigation.”  Here is the Judge’s list of keywords:

(1) AADFW,
(2) Corrosion,
(3) Corrosive,
(4) Corrosive Water,
(5) Crack,
(6) De-zinc,
(7) Dezincification,
(8) DZR,
(9) Fail,
(10) IMR,
(11) Leak,
(12) MES,
(13) SCC,
(14) Stress corrosion cracking

Without looking at the underlying data, it’s clear from the outset that Judge Montgomery didn’t craft a good search strategy (as Judge Grimm might have predicted).  For example, terms 2, 3, 4 and 14 could’ve been captured by a single stemmed search using the term “corros*.” Without such a stemmed search approach, the terms would probably have been run singly in the proposed protocol, meaning that each one would’ve had tremendous duplication, thereby resulting in wasted attorney review time and processing costs.

Judge Montgomery did recognize the potential error of her ways and gave the parties an out:

“The parties may decide on a different set of fourteen terms if they choose to do so. Additionally, if the search, as ordered by the Court, proves to be overly burdensome or costly, Zurn may renew its objection by presenting the Court with specific information including evidence from computer experts on applying the search terms, the number of documents identified, and the cost and time burdens of vetting documents.”

This “specific evidence” language seems to track notions from Sedona’s search best practices protocol, which prescribes sampling and iterative search term refinement.  What is surprising is that knowing this she would nevertheless blindly proffer the 14 term search strategy.  Instead, she should’ve quoted Victor Stanley and required the parties to come up with a data driven approach that met requisite precision and recall metrics.

Aside from those overarching themes I was struck by how polarizing the discussion was around one recent case in particular.  While many notable commentators have already made this the most talked about cases of the year, Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D. Utah Mar. 30, 2009) continues to stimulate discussion.   Adams v. Dell is a patent infringement case where the plaintiff, alleged that one of the defendants (ASUS) destroyed critical pieces of evidence and should be sanctioned accordingly.

The underlying facts and timelines are fairly complex, but in summary the dispute centered around the alleged infringement of several patents developed to resolve defects in floppy disks during in the late 80′s.  What makes this decision so vexing is that it starts out as a preservation case, but quickly confuses that concept with data retention and information management practices/policies.

So, starting with the preservation angle…  Both sides fortunately agreed about the definition for the duty to preserve evidence, which in the 10^th circuit begins when a party “knows or should know [it] is relevant to imminent or ongoing litigation.”  The triggering of the preservation duty was not surprisingly much more complicated and ASUS (the responding party) claimed that its duty to preserve wasn’t triggered until early 2005, when they received a letter warning it of potential litigation because of the alleged patent infringement.  But, the Magistrate held that “counsel’s letter is not the inviolable benchmark” and the duty to preserve was triggered much earlier (in the 1999-2000 time frame) because similar litigation was rampant in the industry, highlighted by a late 1999 suit where Toshiba paid billions of dollars in a class action settlement related to similar floppy disk issues.

Leaving the murky preservation issue by the wayside for a bit, the Magistrate then moved into ASUS’ claims that FRCP 37(e) provided a safe harbor for its alleged destruction.

“ASUS claims it can find a safe harbor against sanctions because of the recently adopted rule that sanctions may not be generally imposed for ‘failing to provide electronically stored information lost’ if a party can show the loss was ‘a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.’”

Nice try, but strike two for ASUS…

“ASUS provided an extensive declaration from an experienced consultant in e-discovery. While he stated the reasons for and history of ASUS’ ‘distributed information architecture,’ he did not state any opinion as to the reasonableness or good-faith in the system’s operation. And while he says ‘ASUSTeK’s data architecture relies predominantly on storage on individual user’s workstations,’ his 31-page declaration does not show he is familiar with the precise practices pointed out in the declarations of employees. Those employees’ declarations describe the practice of ASUS’ email system to overwrite old data regardless of its significance; ASUS’ reliance on employees for all email and data archiving; and the process of replacement of computers, which also relies on employees to transfer data from their old to their new computers. Neither the expert nor ASUS speak of archiving ‘policies;’ they speak of archiving ‘practices.’

The court’s distinction between “policies” and “practices” seems like a convenient (perhaps “Deus ex machina”) way to discount ASUS’ data retention activities and prevent the use of the FRCP 37(e) safe harbor.  Since in most instances, “bona fide, consistent and reasonable” document retention “policies” have been found to be presumptively valid by everyone ranging from Sedona (Guideline 3) to Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp. and Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005).  It’s not clear how he draws the important “practices” distinction and why said practices are exponentially different from presumptively valid “policies.”

It’s precisely this line of thinking that confuses the alleged failure of the duty to preserve (discussed at the outset of the opinion) with the duty to retain information.  The court seems to think it’s an “unreasonable” practice to have custodians responsible for compliance with data retention and this deficiency made the safe harbor unavailable.

“ASUS has explained that it has no centralized storage of electronic documents, email or otherwise, and relies on individual employees to archive email (which will be deleted if left on the server) and electronic documents (which reside only on individual workstations).”

Not only is this custodian-based retention practice, in and of itself, reasonable; it’s probably the most common form of data retention practices seen at corporations today.  While a number of vendors have promised intelligent retention systems that work without any significant human intervention, for the most part those solutions are still in their infancy.  Additionally, there are significant technical challenges to have an application manage *all* ESI (Electronically Stored Information) that exist for a given custodian (including desktop files, instant messaging, text messaging, social media, etc.) As such, most companies must inherently rely upon their custodians to both retain and preserve data pursuant to company policies.  The court not only seems to miss this point, but also attempts to impose an obligation that corporations must prevent the “loss of data” above and beyond specific preservation obligations.

“ASUS’ practices invite the abuse of rights of others, because the practices tend toward loss of data. The practices place operations-level employees in the position of deciding what information is relevant to the enterprise and its data retention needs. ASUS alone bears responsibility for the absence of evidence it would be expected to possess. While Adams has not shown ASUS mounted a destructive effort aimed at evidence affecting Adams or at evidence of ASUS’ wrongful use of intellectual property, it is clear that ASUS’ lack of a retention policy and irresponsible data retention practices are responsible for the loss of significant data.”

Although the exact rationale was unclear, the court held that ASUS violated their duty to preserve and that the loss of evidence could not be excused as a “routine, good faith operation of electronic information systems.” While the court ruled that sanctions were appropriate, it reserved final sanctions pending the close of discovery.   Depending on what those ultimate sanctions look like, it seems pretty likely that this decision will be subject to appellate review.  Until then, it’s probably too soon to treat this questionable holding as gospel.  Wary corporations however should continue to bolster the “reasonableness” of their information management/retention/destruction policies and practices so that in hindsight a court won’t be able to take away the FRCP electronic discovery 37(e) safe harbor by casting those “practices” as being unreasonable.

Picking five out of the sea of electronic discovery cases isn’t as easy as it sounds.  Sure, a few, like our “Case of the Year” will be no-brainers, but others aren’t as clear cut.  And, they’re certainly open to debate.  But, in my humble opinion here’s THE list, counting down David Letterman style:

5) Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2008)

If there ever was an opinion written by a judge to make a larger societal point, Mancia was certainly it.  Judge Paul Grimm, who’ll appear on this list in another slot as well, has clearly taken the mantle from Judge Scheindlin as the leading electronic discovery jurist.  He’d heretofore authored a number of significant opinions in this area, including Hobson and Thompson. Now, in Mancia he used a garden variety discovery dispute, which was typically rife with boilerplate objections and other obstreperous tactics, to highlight the Sedona Conference’s Cooperation Proclamation.

The lasting takeaway from the opinion is the notion that “[c]ourts repeatedly have noted the need for attorneys to work cooperatively to conduct electronic discovery, and sanctioned lawyers and parties for failing to do so.” To support this notion he cites the Sedona Conference Proclamation and the little used FRCP 26(g).  This opinion is noteworthy because it gives precedent to bolster the Sedona initiative and should provide a ready citation for all those counsel who aren’t getting the level of cooperation they need from the opposition.  It remains to be seen if other judges will follow suit, but this could be the beachhead for a more cooperative electronic discovery process in 2009 and beyond.

4) Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Flagg highlights the growing need to reconcile the electronic discovery landscape, which typically focuses somewhat myopically on email, with the larger informational trends which are now categorized by the use of blogs, social networking sites, instant messaging, and text messaging.  Flagg was one of the first to determine text messages (e.g., messages exchanged among certain officials and employees of the City of Detroit via city-issued text messaging devices) were discoverable under the standards of FRCP 26(b)(1).  The holding further demonstrated the challenges of conducting electronic discovery across information systems that mix personal information with business communications.  This type of information commingling will continue to escalate, causing significant long term electronic discovery challenges due to thorny privacy, privilege and policy implications.

3) Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 4916026 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2008)

Rhoads is one of the first cases post Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 502, which recently created a national standard (versus the previous split in jurisdictions) and now states a “middle ground” for the determining of inadvertent disclosure during electronic discovery.  The key provision is (b)(2) which provides protection only if “the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.”  So, Rhoads took that “reasonableness” question head on in a scenario where the plaintiff Rhoads admittedly (yet inadvertently) produced over eight hundred privileged, electronic documents.  The decision is significant because it used the five-factor test stated in Fidelity, but put an undue weighting on the final test which was: “whether the overriding interests of justice would be served by relieving the party of its errors.”   This approach potentially threatens the development of sound case law that will be necessary to help the deployment of FRE 502 into practice because it casts too much uncertainty with its weighting of “fairness” (a problematically vague notion) in the analysis.  It will be interesting to see if/how this approach is subsequently adopted as we enter the New Year.

2) Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)

This for many was the case of the year given it’s far reaching implications for the legal community.  Some have argued that this isn’t an e-discovery abuse case per se, but more of an example of discovery abuses that just so happened to be centered around ESI.  In either case, the fraud, resulting cover-up, sanctions, ethical issues and privilege discussions made for insightful and thought provoking reading throughout 2008.  The lasting takeaway from Qualcomm appears to be the implications of not just committing discovery abuses, but the failure of having a well thought out e-discovery plan that is actively executed/monitored by outside counsel.  The resulting tension between outside counsel, inside counsel and the internal IT department may continue to escalate if more cases like this make the headlines in 2009.

1)  E-Discovery Case of the Year: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2008 WL 2221841 (D. Md. May 29, 2008)

Judge Grimm’s hallmark opinion has had the legal community buzzing over the past several months and the reason appears pretty straight forward.  In Victor Stanley Grimm builds on the holdings in Seroquel, O’Keefe and Equity Analytics, to boldly cast doubt on a practice so routine that it’s literally shocked the legal community into reevaluation:

(“[D]etermining whether a particular search methodology, such as keywords, will or will not be effective certainly requires knowledge beyond the ken of a lay person (and a lay lawyer) . . . .”

The notion that electronic discovery search is beyond the ability of most attorneys has caused tremors within the litigation support community who had a long history of blindly receiving keywords from counsel, running them and turning back over the results – often blissfully unaware of the extent to which those keyword searches actually located relevant information.  Victor Stanley‘s analysis of the “reasonableness” of search protocols also has impact on the FRE 502 and therefore cements its place alongside other e-discovery “must reads” such as Zubulake and Morgan Stanley.

The cases above are my Top 5.  What additional cases do you think were important?  Please let me know by commenting on the cases you think shaped electronic discovery in 2008 and why.

Learn More On: Frcp Electronic discovery.