en en id en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en es en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en
While 2015 will likely be remembered as the year the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were substantively overhauled to resolve many persistent issues related to e-discovery, 2016 quietly marks ten years since the Federal Rules were amended to expressly recognize, for the first time, that electronically stored information (ESI) was equally as discoverable as its paper counterpart. In 2006, it is unlikely that anyone could have predicted the exponential growth of e-discovery as a litigation niche or the game-changing impact it would have on civil litigation. What will 2016 bring to e-discovery? Here’s some predictions…and a few hopes:
As record retention policies continue to lag behind the generation of data, garden variety commercial cases, not just the bet-the-company matters, will involve data sets that are measured in terabytes.
With burgeoning collections, use of Technology Assisted Review (TAR) will become the default for first round document review, leaving contract attorneys out in the cold.
Following the amendments to the Federal Rules and the publicity surrounding the opinion of the State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, attorneys everywhere—from solos to big firms to in-house counsel—will (hopefully!) begin to treat their duty of technological competence with the seriousness it warrants.
The parties’ planning conference required by Federal Rule 26 will (hopefully!) no longer be treated as a meaningless task to be checked off a list, but utilized to its fullest by attorneys who recognize that it provides a valuable opportunity to negotiate a road map for the entire discovery process.
Companies and their attorneys alike will (hopefully!) recognize that e-discovery compliance starts with sound information governance, including a thoughtful record retention policy that provides for regularly scheduled destruction of extraneous data as well as protocols to suspend those provisions in the even a litigation hold is issued.
Savvy companies moving to the cloud will demand that cloud providers integrate e-discovery functionality into their platforms or, at least, provide contractual mechanisms for compliance with discovery requests or subpoenas.
The Internet of Things will continue to expand and will become the next battle ground for data collection disputes.
The impact of the European Union’s stringent data privacy rules will be felt more widely as the marketplace continues to globalize and U.S. entities doing business abroad struggle to deal with the complexities of cross border e-discovery.
Although nothing is certain, it seems a safe bet that 2016 will be an interesting year in e-discovery as litigants, counsel and the courts all grapple with the impact of the new rules and the continual march of technology.
Tags: Electronically Stored Information, ESI, European Union, Federal Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, TAR, Technology Assisted Review
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Andrea Donovan Napp is chair of the firm’s Electronic Discovery and Information Management Team. In addition to e-discovery, Andrea focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation, business torts, and market conduct cases, representing businesses, municipalities, and individuals in various jurisdictions. As chair of…
Andrea Donovan Napp is chair of the firm’s Electronic Discovery and Information Management Team. In addition to e-discovery, Andrea focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation, business torts, and market conduct cases, representing businesses, municipalities, and individuals in various jurisdictions. As chair of the Electronic Discovery and Information Management Team, Andrea coordinates Robinson+Cole’s use of the latest technology, such as Concordance, CaseMap, LAW, LiveNote, and various Web-based platforms, to achieve maximum efficiency and compliance for our clients. Andrea has significant experience in all aspects of e-discovery, including document retention and data management planning, development of defensible collection policies, and management of large scale reviews and production. She has managed several large, sophisticated e-discovery projects in government investigations and private litigation. Notably, she led United Technologies Corporation’s privilege review in the Department of Justice’s antitrust review of the largest-ever aerospace merger. She routinely counsels clients on the development of data retention policies, legal hold practices, and e-discovery response plans. Read her rc.com bio here.
Show more Show less
Considering E-Discovery in Cloud Contracts
The Case for E-Discovery Education in Law School
Back to basics: Litigation hold notices
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter
Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Facebook
View Our Linkedin Profile View Our Linkedin Profile
Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider
Follow us on Twitter Follow Us on Facebook View Our Linkedin Profile RSS
Robinson+Cole is a law firm serving regional, national and global clients from nine offices throughout the Northeast. Our Data Privacy + Security Team brings together lawyers from the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology, Commercial Litigation, and E-Commerce Groups.
Topics Select Category Artificial Intelligence Autonomous Machines Autonomous Systems Autonomous Vehicles Blockchain Cannabis CCPA Children’s Privacy Coronavirus Cybersecurity Data Breach Data Privacy Data Security Digital Assets Drone Privacy Drones e-Discovery Enforcement + Litigation Events Geolocation Guest Posts Health Information Privacy HIPAA and Health Information Information Governance Insurance Coverage International Privacy Laws Internet of Things Mergers & Acquisitions New + Now Privacy Tips Public-Private Partnerships with Cyber Security Safe Harbor Social Media State Laws Relating to Data Telehealth Telephone Consumer Protection Act Uncategorized Virtual Currency Websites
Archives Select Month September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015