Perspectives on Discovery from an Attorney / Records Manager 3/15/2007 ©The Cadence Group, Inc. 2007- Confidential & Proprietary Information is our Forté.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
Advertisements

Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
1 Amendments to the Federal Rules Electronic Discovery Dino Tsibouris (614)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC “Zubulake IV”
The Evolving Law of E-Discovery Joseph J. Ortego, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP New York, NY Jericho, NY.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004 District Justice Scheindlin Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Zubulake V.
© The McCoy Law Firm 2012 James McCoy The McCoy Law Firm Coit Rd., Ste. 560 Dallas, Texas (214)
© 2007 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Attorney Advertising The Global Law Firm for Israeli Companies Dispute Resolution in the United States.
1 As of April 2014 Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
INFORMATION WITHOUT BORDERS CONFERENCE February 7, 2013 e-DISCOVERY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA) Training.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Litigation and Procedure Discovery: Overview and Interrogatories Litigation and Procedure.
Ethical Issues in the Electronic Age Ethical Issues in the Electronic Age Frost Brown Todd LLC Seminar May 24, 2007 Frost Brown.
E-Discovery LIMITS ON E-DISCOVERY. No New Preservation Rule When does duty to preserve attach? Reasonably anticipated litigation. Audio sanctions.
17th Annual ARMA Metro Maryland Spring Seminar Confidentiality, Access, and Use of Electronic Records.
EDiscovery and Records Management. Records Management- Historical Perspective- Paper Historically- Paper was the “Corporate Memory” – a physical entity.
Developing a Records & Information Retention & Disposition Program:
American Tort Law Carolyn McAllaster Clinical Professor of Law Duke University School of Law.
Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.
Fraud Examination Evidence I: Physical, Documentary, and Observational Evidence McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc. 239 F.R.D. 81 District of New Jersey
The Sedona Principles 1-7
Attorney-Client Privilege and Privacy Considerations Between US Corporations & Foreign Affiliates General Counsel Conference, Washington, D.C. October.
Discovery III Expert Witness Disclosure And Discovery Motions & Sanctions.
1 Agenda for 7th Class Admin –Slides –Name plates out Work Product Experts Introduction to Sanctions.
E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb.
FRCP 26(f) Sedona Principle 3 & Commentaries Ryann M. Buckman Electronic Discovery September 21, 2009 Details of FRCP 26(f) Details of Sedona Principle.
2009 CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY RULES The California Electronic Discovery Act Batya Swenson E-discovery Task Force
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Lawsuits Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2003 SECTION F CLASS 21 DISCOVERY III.
Against: The Liberal Definition and use of Litigation Holds Team 9.
P RINCIPLES 1-7 FOR E LECTRONIC D OCUMENT P RODUCTION Maryanne Post.
Mon. Nov. 26. Work Product “Privilege” A witness, X, who is friendly to the D was interviewed by P’s attorney and a statement was drawn up Is there any.
2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Will Change How You Address Electronically Stored Information Bay Area Intellectual Property Inn.
© 2010 Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. A Healthy Dose of E-Discovery: A Review of Electronic Discovery Laws for the Healthcare Industry.
The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.
CORPORATE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY TRAINING By: Diana C. Toman, Corporate Counsel & Assistant Secretary.
Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication LA 310.
ILTA – Insight 2007 E-Disclosure --Preparing for Compliance-- Moderator: Sally Gonzalez, Director, Navigant Consulting, Inc. Panelists: Oz Benamram, Director.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 20 DISCOVERY I Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 7, 2005.
1 Record Management, Electronic Discovery, and the Changing Legal Landscape Dino Tsibouris (614)
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 6-1 Chapter 6 CHAPTER 6 INTERNAL CONTROL IN A FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT.
The Risks of Waiver and the Costs of Pre- Production Privilege Review of Electronic Data 232 F.R.D. 228 (D. Md. 2005) Magistrate Judge, Grimm.
Depositions and Law & Motion
© 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Primary Changes To The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015 Presented By Shuman, McCuskey, & Slicer, PLLC.
Copyright © 2015 Bradley & Riley PC - All rights reserved. October 30, 2015 IA ACC 2 nd Annual Corp. Counsel Forum Timothy J. Hill Laura M. Hyer N EW F.
Emerging Case Law and Recent eDiscovery Decisions.
Fool me twice… Shame on Me Metro Toronto Convention Centre February 2, 2010.
HIPAA Training Workshop #1 Council of Community Clinics – San Diego February 7, 2003 by Kaye L. Rankin Rankin Healthcare Consultants, Inc.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 17 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 4, 2002.
EDiscovery Also known as “ESI” Discovery of “Electronically Stored Information” Same discovery, new form of storage.
Proposed and Recent Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
© Sara M. Taylor 2002 Rules of Discovery  State  Federal.
B EYOND THE C LAIM : T O L ITIGATION … AND B EYOND Jackson M. Engels Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2005 SECTIONS C & F CLASS 21 DISCOVERY II October 11, 2005.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines FRCP 26(f) mandates that parties “meaningfully meet and confer” to consider the nature of their respective claims and defenses.
School of Health Sciences Unit 3 Legal Aspects of Health Information and Health Care Statistics HI 135 Instructor: Alisa Hayes, MSA, RHIA, CCRC.
Forms of Pretrial Discovery in the Auto Property Damage Case Mark Demian and Jeffrey Dubin Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLP.
2015 Civil Rules Amendments. I. History of Rule 26 Amendments.
Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA) Training
Leveraging the Data Map – A Case Study November 15, 2016
Federal Rules Update Effective Dec. 1, 2015.
Civil Litigation: Before The Trial
The Future of Discovery Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Presented by: Rachael Zichella of Taylor English Duma LLP
Discovery Discovered.
Presentation transcript:

Perspectives on Discovery from an Attorney / Records Manager 3/15/2007 ©The Cadence Group, Inc Confidential & Proprietary Information is our Forté

2 Introduction RM owes a BIG THANK YOU The Changes to the Rules Is Anything that Different? What Can You Do to Be Prepared? Observations

3 Information is our Forté What Brought about the Change?  Default Judgment for plaintiffs for discovery abuses including failure to produce >Metro. Opera Ass’n v. Local 100 Hotel Employees’ and Restaurant Employees’ Union (S.D.N.Y. 2003)  Adverse inference jury charge for destruction of evidence >Zubalake v. USB Warburg (S.D.N.Y. 2004)  $2,995, sanction for failure to preserve s >U.S. v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (DDC 2004)

4 Information is our Forté Discovery Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FRCP Rule 26(b)(1)since 1937

5 Information is our Forté Advisory Committee Notes The amendments to subdivision (b) make clear the broad scope of examination and that it may cover not only evidence for use at the trial but also inquiry into matters in themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his case. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules— 1946 Amendment

6 Information is our Forté Rule 26 after 1993 amendment: Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures. Except in categories of proceedings specified in Rule 26(a)(1)(E), or to the extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties: (B) a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment;

7 Information is our Forté 1993 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 A n itemized listing of each exhibit is not required, the disclosure should describe and categorize, to the extent identified during the initial investigation, the nature and location of potentially relevant documents and records, including computerized data and other electronically-recorded information,

8 Information is our Forté The Sky Is Not Falling What has changed? >Meet & Confer topics stated >Electronically Stored Information (ESI) >Claw Back Provision >Rule 37 Safe Harbor

9 Information is our Forté FRCP Rule 26 (b)(2)(B) A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion…, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information sought is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that burden is met the court may nonetheless order discovery from those sources if the requesting party shows good cause… Amendment effective 1 December 2006

10 Information is our Forté FRCP Rule 26 (f) some additions Parties to meet…at least 21 days before a scheduling conference…to discuss any issues relating to preserving discoverable information… (3) any issue relating to disclosure or discovery of ESI, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; (4) any issue relating to claims of privilege…including---if the parties agree on a procedure to assert such claims after production… Underlining identifies changes

11 Information is our Forté Rule 34 Right to Inspect (a) Any party may serve on any other party a request… to inspect… any designated document or electronically stored information. (b)…The request may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is produced. FRCP Rule 34 Rule 34 inspection was always part of the Rules. ESI is now spelled out.

12 Information is our Forté New to the Rules ESI is spelled out in the Rule >It is an effort to make the rules reflect common language >It clarifies, When we say computer, we mean computer >Accessible v. Inaccessible applies only to electronic date What about that warehouse full of boxes that were never inventoried?

13 Information is our Forté What “They” Are Saying  Judges do not understand technology.  Safe Harbor May Not Be Safe.  Claw-back provision offers some peace of mind.  Rule 26 (f) Meet & Confer has created a new burden to disclose information.

14 Information is our Forté What Can Records Managers Do? Evaluate Records Management Infrastructure  Does your Organization have Executive Support?  Is your RM Infrastructure well developed? >Does it meet industry standards? >Does it comply with established practices? >Does it work at all levels? If not what needs fixing? What is missing?  When was your Records Retention Schedule last updated?  Do you have a well-organized plan for managing e-records?

15 Information is our Forté What Can Records Managers Do? Records Management: A three legged stool.  Policies/Procedures  Training  Policing

16 Information is our Forté Policy/Procedures  Policy >Overarching RM statement includes; life cycle, records security, disposal suspension and new businesses integration  Procedures >Step by step process for managing lifecycle of various forms of information within organization  Records Retentions Schedule >Defines minimum retention period based on operational, legal/regulatory and business requirements Manage All of These Consistently

17 Information is our Forté Training  Train All Users on P/P  Communicate Changes and Inform Users  Use Creative Method to enhance learning  Keep Training  Refreshers

18 Information is our Forté Policing  Audit Users  Audit Systems for needs  Look for how to improve learning

19 Information is our Forté What are Plaintiffs looking for?  Is your RM infrastructure complete?  Do you follow your policy consistently?  Are things organized?  Substantive items to support case  How can I make it costly for the other side?

20 Information is our Forté What Are Some Companies doing?  Relying on Software that does not meet the needs  Piece-meal application  Not Training  Not Policing  “RM is not on our radar.”  “We are not a regulated industry.”  “We are not a big enough target.”

21 Information is our Forté What Are Some Companies doing?  44% of organizations have Litigation Readiness plan for Paper  36% have Litigation Readiness Plan for Electronics  <50% have legal Holds Process in Place  11% Strongly Agree that RIM is consistently enforced * 2006 AIIM Industry Watch On-Line Survey delivered Q4,06

22 Information is our Forté Tips for the Prepared  Have a solid infrastructure  Consistently apply Records Policy governing lifecycle  Manage Your Paper (Records & Non-Records)  Be organized  Train, Train, Train  Audit, Police, Look for ways to improve.  * Map Electronic Environment * including legacy

23 Information is our Forté Final Words Records Management: It is not Rocket Surgery

24 Information is our Forté For More Information Thank You  Contact... >Jeffrey Bridges > x144  On our Website download… > >Disposal Suspension: Are You Ready When the Summons Comes? >RM Services