The Sedona Cooperation Proclamation and the Case for Collaboration
Monday, November 17th, 2008
Without getting in Dutch with the key Sedona Conference principle that “what happens at Sedona, stays at Sedona” I thought I’d nevertheless write a post that focuses on the core topic at this year’s annual meeting, namely the case for cooperation in e-discovery.
According to the “Cooperation Proclamation” e-discovery is facing an unprecedented crisis:
“The costs associated with adversarial conduct in pre-trial discovery have become a serious burden to the American judicial system. This burden rises significantly in discovery of electronically stored information (”ESI”). In addition to rising monetary costs, courts have seen escalating motion practice, overreaching, obstruction, and extensive, but unproductive discovery disputes - in some cases precluding adjudication on the merits altogether - when parties treat the discovery process in an adversarial manner. Neither law nor logic compels these outcomes. With this Proclamation, The Sedona Conference launches a national drive to promote open and forthright information sharing, dialogue (internal and external), training, and the development of practical tools to facilitate cooperative, collaborative, transparent discovery.”
These sentiments about the “broken” nature of the discovery process echo in many ways the draft findings from the Interim Report & 2008 Litigation Survey from the Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers which stated:
“The joint study grew out of a concern that discovery is increasingly expensive and that the expense and burden of discovery are having substantial adverse effects on the civil justice system. There is a serious concern that the costs and burdens of discovery are driving litigation away from the court system and forcing settlements based on the costs, as opposed to the merits, of cases.”
In both instances, the core notion is that “we’ve met the enemy and the enemy is us” because it’s the participants in the process have collectively perverted the discovery process to the point it’s at today.
Sedona’s focus on this front has received at least some traction from the bench, as echoed in Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co., 2008 WL 4595175 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2008). Mancia, written by leading e-discovery jurist Judge Grimm, was a fairly pedestrian employment litigation case where the parties had come to loggerheads over the e-discovery process. Judge Grimm held that “[c]ourts repeatedly have noted the need for attorneys to work cooperatively to conduct discovery, and sanctioned lawyers and parties for failing to do so” citing both the Sedona Cooperation Proclamation and the Survey.
Judge Grimm also observed that the these recent lamentations about the costs of civil litigation aren’t terribly dissimilar to those voiced eighteen years ago when the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 471 et seq., was passed:
“Perhaps the greatest driving force in litigation today is discovery. Discovery abuse is a principal cause of high litigation transaction costs. Indeed, in far too many cases, economics-and not the merits-govern discovery decisions. Litigants of moderate means are often deterred through discovery from vindicating claims or defenses, and the litigation process all too often becomes a war of attrition for all parties.”
Given the fundamentally adversarial nature of litigation, the Sedona initiative is either dramatically ambitious or simply tilting at windmills. While generally a skeptic by nature, I think that the bench’s early participation and downstream behavior modification is the linchpin to reforming the litigating masses. Given the long term “sales” cycle involved here, I doubt if we’ll know whether this effort will gain real traction for at least several years.
