United States: Advocacy In E-Discovery More Important Than Ever

In this day and age, advocacy starts with competence in ESI issues. An effective advocate must be able to assess e-discovery needs and issues, implement appropriate preservation procedures, advise clients on options for storage and preservation, understand the client's ESI systems and storage, and handle the management, review and production of ESI in litigation. But this knowledge by itself is not enough. Only with an understanding of how the amendments to the Federal Rules account for issues pertaining to ESI can the attorney meaningfully advocate for the client.

 Relevance and Proportionality Defines the Scope of Discovery

One of the major changes to the rules is the deletion of the phrase "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" in Rule 26. That language was previously used to describe the test for relevance, but it was often incorrectly applied to define the scope of discovery to the point where it swallows any limitation on the scope of discovery. The new test now emphasizes proportionality, and the relevant case law informing the scope of discovery going forward will increasingly be that which applies the new rules. See In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016) ("[J]ust as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard, the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule 26(b)(1)").

First, attorneys should perform a comprehensive early-stage assessment of their cases. They should candidly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses, and determine what evidence to present at trial. This way, attorneys can design and implement the most efficient, effective discovery plan. This forces attorneys to be thoughtful about the claims and defenses they want to assert so as to not expand the scope of discovery beyond what is good for the client. For example, attorneys should avoid pushing a claim or counterclaim that has a low probability of success, because doing so may expose the client to burdensome and expensive discovery on an unimportant issue.

With this in mind, it is important for attorneys to implement the new rules in a way that furthers the interests of the client. The rule amendments underscore the notion that the Rules require all parties to work together in a cooperative and proportional way by (1) considering costs, the parties' resources, burdens and importance of issues, and (2) communicating early and often about what is actually in dispute and what is necessary to resolve the dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (amended to require that "the court and the parties" use the Rule to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1) committee notes (promotes "direct simultaneous communication" between parties). This starts by being transparent in the initial stages of the discovery process by disclosing the search methodology, locations and rationale in preparing the client's responses to discovery requests, and justifying your methods under the proportionality principles emphasized under the new rules. For example, attorneys can explain the keyword searches being used in specific data systems for specific custodians.

Be Specific in Seeking Discovery

Attorneys should leverage the New Rules to promote efficiency. Rule 26(d)(2) permits a party to serve requests for production under Rule 34 before the Rule 26(f) conference. Therefore, attorneys may want to serve discovery requests before the Rule 26(f) conference to work through any issues, discuss valid objections and negotiate the scope of discovery at the 26(f) conference itself. In other words, attorneys can make the Rule 26(f) conference productive. Rule 26(d)(3) allows parties to stipulate to case-specific sequences of discovery (rather than only on motion or order). And the Rule 26(f) conference/plan must include parties' views on preservation of ESI.

Attorneys can best serve their clients by demonstrating to the court that they are conducting discovery in good faith; this will ultimately help their clients and give the judge more reason to believe that parties are reasonable and forthright. The most fundamental way to do this is to serve narrowly tailored and targeted discovery requests. Parties often serve their adversaries with long lists of broad, vague and burdensome requests, which violate the new Federal Rules and may lead less patient judges to deny not only unnecessary requests, but also necessary ones that can get conflated in the mix of overly burdensome requests. A court is more likely to enforce narrowly tailored requests and lead to the discovery of important evidence. See Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-Civ.-7126 (JMF), 2016 WL 6779901, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (discovery request seeking "all documents" by its very nature "falls short" on proportionality principles under Rule 26).

Draft discovery requests and responses assuming the judge will see them. If there is a dispute, the judge will review them, and having reasonable, defensible positions will benefit you and your client. Additionally, overly expansive requests can also be strategically harmful because they give adversaries the opportunity to bury important documents among thousands or millions of irrelevant ones. Seek discovery in a manageable way in order to avoid wasting time and money. If the advocate fails to limit the scope of discovery, the cost of collecting, managing and reviewing documents can snowball into exorbitant sums. See Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2016 WL 6963039, at *5 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2016) ("The 2015 amendment calls for renewed consideration of the time and money litigants must expend on discovery, and for courts to impose reasonable limits on discovery through the common-sense concept of proportionality.")

Be Specific in Objections When Responding to Discovery

New Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires specificity about whether any responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of an objection. Judges have always disdained and been critical of boilerplate objections. See, e.g., Buskirk v. Wiles, No. 15-Civ.-03503, 2016 WL 7118288, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2016) ("[O]bjections to Rule 34 requests must be stated specifically and boilerplate objections regurgitating words and phrases from Rule 26 are completely unacceptable."); Menell v. Rialto Unified Sch. Dist., 15-Civ.-2124 (VAP) (KKX), 2016 WL 3452920, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ("Defendant's boilerplate relevance and vagueness objections to each request are improper and not well-taken.").

Now, "with the advent of the 2015 amendments to Rule 26, the days of boilerplate objections are over." Kruse v. Regina Caeli, Inc., No. 16-10304, 2016 WL 3549361, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2016) (dismissing boilerplate interrogatory objections, "each of which repeats the [same] formulaic phrase."). Under new Rule 34(b)(2) (C), attorneys must state specifically what information is being withheld on the basis of any objection. See Sperling v. Stein Mart, Inc., 15-Civ.-1411 (BRO) (KKX), 2017 WL 90370, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) ("general or boilerplate objections such as 'overly burdensome and harassing' are improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections."). Simply put, "generalized objections ... do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Wellin v. Wellin, – F.Supp.3d –, No. 13-Civ.-1831-DCN, 2016 WL 5539523, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2016).

Attorneys may be prone to include boilerplate objections without detailing the specific bases for any valid objections, thinking that doing so serves as a precautionary measure to preserve the right to invoke any objection later, when in fact, the opposite may be true. Failure to be specific in discovery objections may actually result in waiver of any objections. See Fischer v. Forrest, – F.Supp.3d –, 2017 WL 773694, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) ("Any discovery response that does not comply with [amended] Rule 34's requirement to state objections with specificity ... will be deemed a waiver of all objections[.]"). See also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., – F.Supp.3d –, 15-Civ.-2745 (RMG), 2016 WL 8135417, at *7 (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2016) ("boilerplate, general objections standing alone waive any actual, specific objections."); Schultz v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., 15- Civ.-04160 (LLP), 2016 WL 3149686, at *7 (D.S.D. June 3, 2016) ("boilerplate general objections fail to preserve any valid objection at all because they are not specific to a particular discovery request ..."); Arrow Enter. Computing Sols., Inc. v. BlueAlly, LLC, 15-Civ.- 0037 (FL), 2016 WL 4287929, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2016) (Defendants' objections "are nothing more than boilerplate objections: they fail to specify why the requested documents are not relevant to a party's claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the case.").

Understanding the Remedial Measures for Lost ESI Under Rule 37(e)

In 2006, the Federal Rules were amended to limit the circumstances under which sanctions could be imposed for failing to preserve ESI. It provided a safe harbor for the loss of ESI that occurred in good faith. But with the exponential growth in the volume of ESI, the circuit courts had established significantly different standards for imposing punitive sanctions or curative measures under similar circumstances.

New Rule 37(e) was drafted to incorporate specific remedial measures to minimize the inconsistencies across federal courts in addressing the failure to preserve ESI. It authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved is lost, as well as specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. Upon a finding of prejudice, the court may order measures no greater than necessary to cure that prejudice (e.g., excluding item of evidence to offset prejudice, jury instructions to assist in evaluation of evidence). Upon finding intent to restrict another party's use of ESI, the court may presume information was unfavorable, may instruct the jury that lost information was unfavorable (i.e., adverse inferences), or may dismiss the case or enter a default judgment.

But some courts misapply new Rule 37(e) or do not give it proper consideration. For example, in Brice v. Auto- Owners Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1633025 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 21, 2016), the court granted an adverse inference under pre-2015 Sixth Circuit authority for negligent deletion of email and text messages, without consideration of Rule 37(e). Had the court applied Rule 37(e), then it is unlikely that it would have imposed an adverse inference for "negligent" conduct, id. at *6, without finding an "intent to deprive" required under Rule 37(e) to impose an adverse inference.

Although it may be tempting to seek or impose harsh sanctions for failing to preserve ESI, the new rule details exercising certain measures under specific findings as appropriate, and the absence of such findings should lead the court to exercise restraint. For example, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, 2017 WL 239341 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 19, 2017), the court chided plaintiff Wal-Mart for "very poor practice" in wiping the laptop when it knew "litigation was looming," but still declined to impose sanctions where alleged prejudice resulting from loss of Wal-Mart's ESI (in former employee's laptop) was speculative. The court acknowledged that "[w]hether to impose discovery sanctions is a decision committed to this Court's discretion, but the scope of that discretion narrows as to the severity of the sanction increases." Id. at *1.

Effective Advocacy May Involve Educating Your Adversary and/or the Court

Despite the fact that the changes were implemented in 2015, many jurists and attorneys are unfamiliar with how the rule changes should affect discovery on a practical level. See, e.g., Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark Inc., – F.Supp.3d – , No. 10-Civ.-1609, 2016 WL 5025751, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016) (special master erred in considering "relevancy to be as broad as the subject matter, which is broader than the scope of discovery contemplated by [amended] Rule 26," which now requires consideration of "proportionality"). Lawyers should understand the new rules, encourage early and active judicial management, and make it a point to express the purpose of the rule changes. "For Rule 26(b) (1)'s proportionality mandate to be meaningful, it must apply from the onset of a case. Imposing proportionality only after motion practice establishes the viability of the parties' claims or defenses would thwart that purpose." Ciuffitelli v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2016 WL 6963039, at *5 (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2016).

It is important to set the tone of being fair and reasonable from the beginning. This should be done first at the Rule 26(f) conference between the parties and again early in the case at the pretrial conference mandated under Rule 16. Attorney should use the Rule 16 conference as a substantive hearing to map out discovery, which can serve as an opportunity to integrate the local rules/practice with the new Federal Rules to advance the purpose of the rule amendments in any action. See Card v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1298723, at *5 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016) ("Consistent with the recently amended FRCP, the Court believes a pretrial conference would provide the best forum for expediting disposition of this action. The conference will address

At the first case management conference, invite the judge to direct discussions with parties to formulate the scope of relevance and productions. Communicate with the court early and often in attempts to engage the adversary in cooperative discussions on the scope of discovery. If the judge is not familiar with the new rules that should govern such discussions, then provide the court with the background, commentary and law it needs in order to apply the new rules effectively. It may be helpful to refer to sources of national thought leadership, such as Sedona materials, scholarship from other judges or the Manual for Complex Litigation published by the Federal Judicial Center.

Judges who involve themselves in early case management benefit from doing so. Early case management helps minimize the time and resources the court would later expend on dealing with discovery disputes. Setting forth expectations and clearly defining the scope of discovery under the new standards promote efficiency and quicker resolution of cases on the court's docket. A hands-on approach from the judge also signals to the parties that gamesmanship in discovery will not be tolerated. Courts should keep in mind, and lawyers may need to remind the court, that "[t]he amendment [to] Rule 26(b)(1) was intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse by emphasizing the need to analyze proportionality[.]" Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., – F.R.D. –, 2016 WL 7017356, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2016).

Some courts may nevertheless remain reluctant to get involved with or seriously address discovery disputes. Therefore, it is important that the attorney maximize the utility of the new rules by proactively working with opposing counsel to address thorny issues before disputes and problems arise. That should start with making productive use of the Rule 26(f) conference and Rule 16 pretrial conference, as discussed above. Be fair, forthright and transparent. In leading by example, the lawyer establishes the moral ground to demand that the adversary reciprocate in kind. Ultimately, all judges respond to practical and commonsense approaches advocated by lawyers who have established their credibility by being reasonable in negotiations and knowledgeable about the current rules/law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions