Addressing State E-Discovery Issues through Rulemaking: The Case for Adopting the 2006 Federal Amendments

Allman, Thomas Y., Defense Counsel Journal

SIX YEARS ago, I argued in the pages of this Journal that the authors of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should take into account how the significant differences between hard copy and electronic information were impacting "both the litigation process and [the] business world." Since then, of course, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee mounted an intense rule drafting effort (2) resulting in the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "2006 Amendments"). (3)

This article evaluates the efficacy of the 2006 Amendments and the extent to which they should serve as a model for State and District of Columbia rulemaking. A concerted effort should be made to incorporate the 2006 Amendments, especially in light of the practical compromise reached on preservation issues, including the important "gap filler" role played by the Sedona Principles. (4)

An Appendix details the rulemaking efforts in twenty-six states and the District of Columbia.

I. E-Discovery

Pre-trial discovery is essential to the litigation process. As the Supreme Court noted in 1947, (4) "[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession."

Of course, the Court conceded in the same case that "discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries." (5) Those "ultimate and necessary" boundaries have been severely tested in federal courts by the excesses of electronic discovery resulting from a focus on email in discovery and an excessive quest for duplicative and elusive information regardless of the costs or burdens involved. Although the volume of problems reported by state courts is less, there is no reason to believe that e-discovery issues are likely to be any less vexing there in the future.

No aspect of e-discovery has been more contentious or difficult than the "duty to preserve" as applied to electronic information.

Federal Amendments and the Duty to Preserve

The effort to amend the Federal Rules can be traced to the 1999 formation of a Discovery Subcommittee of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee charged with the responsibility to identify issues peculiar to electronic discovery that might justify rules amendments. As part of that effort, mini-conferences on e-discovery were held at Hastings and Brooklyn Law Schools during 2000 where discussion of the challenges of preservation and spoliation took center stage. There was also a certain amount of "rulemaking" fatigue expressed in light of the number of recent discovery rule changes. (6)

Those of us with ongoing responsibility for major litigation advocated action to identify and clarify preservation obligations. To us, there seemed to be a dangerous disconnection between the way in which courts viewed information management and the way that the business and technical world actually operated. We argued that the fear of sanctions for inadvertent loss of electronically stored information ("ESI") had created an unfair chilling effect and distorted business processes by encouraging over-retention of information. (7)

In December, 2000, for example, I wrote to (then) Magistrate Judge John Carroll, Chair of the Discovery Subcommittee, (8) to suggest adoption of a rule that a party should not be required to suspend the operation of electronic systems which were operated in good faith without a prior court order. (9) I also suggested that only willful violations of preservation orders should justify imposition of sanctions. As far as I can tell, this was the first explicit suggestion for preservation rules or a safe harbor, which I amplified in subsequent articles. (10)

The Discovery Subcommittee met numerous times over the next few years and ultimately developed formulations for including preservation obligations in the discovery rules. A proposal drafted for the seminal Fordham E-Discovery Conference (11) in 2004 would have amended Rule 26 or created a new Rule 34.1 to provide that parties need not suspend the "operation in good faith" of "disaster recovery or other [computer] systems" provided that one day's backup was retained. It would also have provided that information in inaccessible form did not have to be preserved unless a court ordered the party to do so. (12)

The Subcommittee proposal also recommended that Rule 37(f) be added to make it clear that no sanctions should issue for a failure to produce ESI unless the party "willfully or recklessly" deleted or otherwise made ESI unavailable after having been served with a request that described it with reasonable certainty. (13) This rule was described as a "safe harbor," a label which has survived, although heavily criticized because of the inherent limitations and exceptions in the final articulation. (14)

Only the "safe harbor" provision survived the rulemaking process. (15) Articulation of the duty to preserve was left to the common law as informed by best …

Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Addressing State E-Discovery Issues through Rulemaking: The Case for Adopting the 2006 Federal Amendments. Contributors: Allman, Thomas Y. - Author. Journal title: Defense Counsel Journal. Volume: 74. Issue: 3 Publication date: July 2007. Page number: 233+. © 1999 International Association of Defense Counsels. COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group.

This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.