Anniversary of E-Discovery Amendments

Today marks one year since significant changes were made in 2015 to the original 2006 federal rules on electronic discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)1 now emphasizes proportionality and seems to have influenced determining the expense or burden of proposed discovery in a more realistic way. The advent of technology assisted review has also brought costs down and is being employed more frequently by parties and is accepted and even encouraged by courts. My role remains as E-neutral, mediator or sometimes court-appointed special master to facilitate the electronic discovery process by helping parties to agree on the form in which they want information produced and the extent to which metadata will be produced. Mediation can feature private caucuses with retained experts or information technology liaisons that may help conduct discovery proportionally, minimizing motion practice, and avoiding sanctions and unpredictable judicial outcomes. Cooperation using alternative dispute resolution may also encompass settling procedures to be followed when discovering privileged information that has been inadvertently produced in the course of discovery, including clawbacks or agreed confidentiality orders. Rule 37(e) improved the safe harbor for mistakes in deletion, recognizing the volume of data generated is ever increasing and has made preservation more challenging. Sophistication of the parties is still taken into account in reasonable steps taken to initiate holds, but a lawyer's duty of competence in technology in more important than ever. Our E-Discovery & E-Neutral Services can help in that area, providing assistance by hosting Meet and Confer sessions, facilitating cost effective, mutually cooperative, and relevant ESI programs-- even in state court, with Mediated Case Management or Pretrial Stipulations under Florida Civil Rules 1.200 or 1.201. As Special Magsitrates, we are available to monitor E-discovery compliance or perform complex in-camera reviews for which judges don't have time. See more here-- http://www.uww-adr.com/services/e-discovery-and-e-neutral-services/index

Special Master Services Streamline Discovery

Having chaired the effort to amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to include Electronically Stored Information (ESI), I often remind courts, counsel and litigants that neutrals are now an available avenue to resolve electronic discovery disputes. We are prepared to serve as Special Masters (Special Magistrates under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) to assist in e-discovery issues in state and federal matters, including: hosting federal Rule 26 “Meet and Confer” sessions; facilitating cost effective, mutually cooperative, and relevant e-discovery programs; procuring Mediated Case Management or Pretrial Stipulations under Florida Rules 1.200 or 1.201; monitoring discovery compliance and outcomes, and adjudicating legal or technical disputes if necessary. In given cases, by agreement, we neutrals can also serve as “e-discovery mediators” or E-Neutrals to conduct negotiated settlement discussions to resolve issues relating to identification, preservation, collection, review, and production of ESI. Early, proactive involvement of an e-discovery special master or mediator educated in the realm of electronic discovery may yield immediate benefits in both the efficiency and economy of litigation, keeping the discovery process on track to producing the best information available for trial or settlement. Our firm just finished a team in camera review of multiple thousands of documents hosted on kCura's Relativity 9 platform for the Complex Business Litigation Division of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Florida, where I once served as a General Magistrate under Chief Judge Belvin Perry. These efforts are cost effective and can save time, as well as aggravation of the judicial officer who will later rule on dispositive motions and preside over the case. See more here-- http://www.uww-adr.com/services/e-discovery-services

New Federal Rules Amendments Now Effective

Last week, the long-awaited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments became effective without changes to the proposed language by Congress. These rules importantly pertain to discovery of Electronically Stored Information or ESI-- a concept first introduced into the FRCP in 2006. The changes are essentially outlined as follows: Rule 1: The very first rule now specifies that both the court and the parties should interpret the rules to secure just, speedy and inexpensive outcomes. Rule 4: Plaintiffs now have only 90 days to serve a defendant after filing the complaint. Of course, courts may still extend the time for service upon a showing of good cause. Rule 16: Conferences set under this rule are now 90 days after service or 60 days after an appearance by a defendant, whichever is earlier. Rule 26: Scope of discovery substantially changes, requiring that discovery requests be proportional to the needs of the case, as opposed to just reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Courts may now allocate discovery costs. Parties are to discuss preservation of evidence in their discovery plan and may serve document requests before the scheduling conference, having been considered served at the first Rule 26(f) conference. Rule 34: Responses to production requests now must state with specificity the grounds for objecting and whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Rule 37: The proverbial Safe Harbor relating to preservation obligations now lessens a court's power to impose sanctions for failure to preserve information, merely allowing ordering so-called curative measures based on a finding that a party is prejudiced from spoliation of evidence. More severe sanctions, such giving an adverse inference or entering default judgment, are permitted under proposed Rule 37(e)(2), but only after finding a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation. Of course, despite a new emphasis on cooperation and proportionality, continuing E-Discovery skirmishes are expected. The use of confidential mediation for the resolution of such disputes by E-Neutrals is encouraged if the parties and counsel cannot settle the entire matter. E-Neutrals are mediators specializing in complex cases involving electronic evidence who can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies. The mediation process may focus a confidential conference solely on managing ESI, or the neutral may broaden the discussion, reminding parties of risks and perhaps dissuading them from merely using E-Discovery as a sword or shield. Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings in ESI cases, if performed early enough in the litigation. Getting back to the merits is the goal of this process and these new discovery rules. Until there are orders applying these amendments and some new FRDs reported, it remains to be seen how they will impact litigation in the federal courts. See more on this development here-- http://www.bna.com/new-rules-civil-n57982064088/ and https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

Tech Firms Settle Recruiting Suit on Eve of Trial

Major technology companies agreed yesterday to settle a class-action lawsuit in which 64,000 employees accused them of conspiring not to recruit each other's workers, suppressing compensation. Terms of the settlement involving Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe weren't immediately released, but the case reportedly settled for about $325 million. During pretrial proceedings, emails from top executives including Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt surfaced, showing the executives conferred on hiring plans, sometimes through intermediaries. Defendants filed motions seeking to exclude evidence that made Jobs appear as a bully, which was apparently validated in Brin's deposition. Avoiding executives appearing on the witness stand made a settlement attractive. Intel stated it was settling to avoid the risks of litigation, but denied violating any laws or obligations. Adobe elected to settle this matter in order to avoid the uncertainties, cost and distraction of litigation. Apple and Google declined comment. Employees of the companies had been seeking $3 billion in damages. Under antitrust rules, that could have been tripled to $9 billion. The settlement follows settlements reached last year with Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit for a combined $20 million. The civil case followed a 2010 Justice Department case on the same matter. Trial was set to begin May 27th before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif. The case alleged an inner circle of Silicon Valley executives communicated during a period when the interoperability of companies' products was often discussed. Emails between the executives embarrassed executives and their companies. E-discovery played a role in the deal, as Schmidt had emailed about only conferring on agreements not to recruit from other companies verbally, so as not to create a paper trail which could later be sued upon. See story here-- http://on.wsj.com/1mEOu7N

Settling ESI disputes with Mediators

Now that we are more than a year into Florida's E-Discovery rules, disputes over electronically stored information are coming to a head. E-neutrals or mediators specializing in complex cases involving electronic evidence can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies. The mediation process may focus the confidential conference solely on managing ESI, or the neutral may broaden the discussion, reminding parties of the merits and perhaps dissuading them from merely using E-discovery as a sword or shield. Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings in ESI cases, if performed early enough in the litigation. For example, though counsel are urged to reach a rational agreement on what must be preserved, taking into account costs and burdens incurred by modifying or suspending document retention systems can be difficult. Implementing even narrowly tailored litigation holds to preserve crucial ESI can be difficult without the assistance of an e-neutral during negotiations. Under the safeguards of a confidential mediation, limited discovery from custodians or other key persons with special knowledge of a company’s computer systems may be particularly useful. Lawyers can then self-determine sources from which relevant information is to be obtained, while the neutral facilitates agreement on the time-frame at issue, search protocols, accessibility of stored information or the cost and burden of restoring inaccessible information. An e-neutral, mediator or special magistrate can also facilitate the electronic discovery process by helping parties to agree on the form in which they want information produced and the extent to which metadata will be produced. Mediation can feature caucuses with experts or IT liaisons that may help conduct discovery proportionally, minimizing motion practice, and avoiding unpredictable judicial outcomes on IT and ESI. Cooperation under this rubric may also encompass settling procedures to be followed when discovering privileged information that has been inadvertently produced in the course of discovery, including clawback agreements or agreed confidentiality orders. If the parties reach an agreement, they may ask the court to include the agreement in their scheduling order.

New AAA Rules in effect for Complex Commercial Disputes

New rules by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) effective this month in "Large, Complex Commercial Disputes" help manage discovery by achieving an efficient and economical resolution of the dispute, while safeguarding a fair opportunity to present claims and defenses. Discovery in the form of production of documents is contemplated, as long as those material documents on which parties intend to rely are not otherwise available, reasonably believed to exist, and relevant to the outcome. This now specifically includes electronically stored information or ESI in the form most convenient and economical to the producing party-- unless the arbitrator finds good cause exists to require otherwise. The arbitrator also is empowered to determine reasonable search parameters for ESI and will weigh the need for ESI against the cost of locating and producing it. Reference to the arbitrator's power to authorize propounding interrogatories is removed, but the arbitrator can still permit depositions. Arbitrators may impose sanctions where there is willful failure to comply with obligations under AAA rules or an order of the arbitrator. Such sanctions could even limit a party's participation in the arbitration, adversely affecting determination of the outcome. However, defaults are not permitted as sanctions. Arbitrators under these new rules should be better equipped to control modern discovery and the costs associated with the advent of electronic discovery. They may also now hear and decide dispositive motions, if the arbitrator determines that the moving party has shown that the motion is likely to succeed and narrow the issues. See AAA rule changes here-- http://go.adr.org/LP=307 and summary http://bit.ly/16z6r3i

Join me next month for It-Lex's Innovate

Technology is outpacing the law. IT-Lex is a Florida not-for-profit organization dedicated to narrowing this gap with entertaining educational experiences. I'll be speaking with nationally known members of the judiciary such as Magistrate Judge John Facciola on cooperation in E-discovery at the first annual conference, Innovate. The Innovate conference will take place on October 17 & 18 in Winter Park, Florida at the brand new Alfond Inn at Rollins College and is designed as an interactive learning experience. Participants are encouraged to email specific questions or comments on our various topics to innovate@it-lex.org. You can email us before or during the conference and presentations, and your participation is a key part of the conference experience. Come join us in introducing new methods and ideas to tackle emerging technology law issues with experts like Ken Withers of The Sedona Conference. See more information here-- http://it-lex.org/innovate/ or the full PDF here- http://it-lex.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Innovate1.pdf

Join me next Tuesday, May 14th for E-Neutrals CLE

The Supreme Court of Florida approved proposed E-discovery rules for state cases last fall. The court adopted amendments to case management to include electronically stored information or ESI. The new rules have affected the state’s diverse legal community of trial attorneys. They aim to streamline case management, but also impose unfamiliar burdens on practitioners who are new to E-discovery. Neutral third parties, such as special magistrates (formerly masters in FL) and mediators, may be able to assist in these instances. I will be speaking in conjunction with the Orange County Bar Association's Intellectual Property and Technology Committees who are presenting a Tuesday afternoon CLE called "Florida's New E-Discovery Rules and Best Practices for All Cases: Taming the ESI Beast," on May 14, 2013 in Orlando. My topic before joining a panel on best practices is entitled, "Using E-Neutrals to Limit the Cost of E-Discovery." For the uninitiated, “E-neutrals” can help shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies that may not have existed in litigation. Our services are not limited to grappling with old or new rules, or to discovery disputes. The course description states, "Lawrence Kolin, an Orlando lawyer and full-time mediator, chaired the Florida Bar subcommittee that drafted these rules. In his CLE, he will present how neutrals can help litigants navigate e-discovery pitfalls and resolve expensive battles before they arise. The course material quotes me: “In resolving these issues, I focus parties on the merits, rather than using E-discovery as a sword or shield,” states Kolin. “Mediation of ESI disputes is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings through self-determination, if performed early enough in the litigation.” I hope you will join me! Contact Marie West-- mariew@ocbanet.org for registration or see http://orangecountybar.org/calendar.asp for more information.

E-Everything coming to Florida Courts

Effective September 1, 2012, E-Discovery amendments to the following existing Florida Rules of Civil Procedure become effective: 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena). These rules will now include Electronically Stored Information or ESI. See Florida Supreme Court E-Discovery amendments opinion at-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-1542.pdf and The Florida Bar News story from forthcoming August 1, 2012 issue quoting me-- http://bit.ly/MEAxsu Additionally, mandatory E-service begins September 1st in civil, probate, small claims, and family law divisions of the trial courts, as well as in all appellate cases. Under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, service by E-mail is deemed complete when sent. E-mail service is made by attaching a copy of the document to be served in PDF format. The E-mail must contain the subject line "SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT" in all capital letters, followed by the case number of the relevant proceeding. The body of the E-mail must identify the court in which the proceeding is pending, the case number, the name of the initial party on each side, the title of each document served, and the sender’s name and telephone number. The E-mail and attachments together may not exceed 5 megabytes in size or must be divided into separate e-mails (no one of which may exceed 5 megabytes) and labeled sequentially in the subject line. When the rules take effect on September 1, attorneys practicing in the criminal, traffic, and juvenile divisions of the trial court may voluntarily choose to serve documents by e-mail under the new procedures, or they may continue to operate under the existing rules. E-mail service will be mandatory for attorneys practicing in these divisions on October 1, 2013. See E-Service opinion at-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc10-2101.pdf Finally, all 67 county clerks of court have been directed to accept E-filings through the statewide e-portal in the civil divisions and new electronic filing requirements will become effective in the civil, probate, small claims, and family law divisions of the trial courts, as well as for appeals to the circuit courts in these categories of cases, on April 1, 2013. As civil ECF is well-established in Orange County, this is nothing new. Next, the new electronic filing requirements the Court adopts will become effective in the criminal, traffic, and juvenile divisions of the trial courts, as well as for appeals to the circuit court in these categories of cases, on October 1, 2013. See E-filing opinion at-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-399.pdf

E-discovery rules in FL at long last!

Effective September 1, 2012 are amendments to seven Florida civil procedure rules: 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena). This is the culmination of a six-year effort initially chaired by me and with the help of members of my subcommittee and the Civil Rules Standing Committee of the Florida Bar. These rules will further allow for the ability for neutrals to play a role in dispute resolution of ESI issues in state court cases. See full opinion and new rules here - http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-1542.pdf and bulletin quoting me "This is the culmination of a rigorous effort to modernize procedure in Florida to include electronically stored information,” attorney Lawrence Kolin, of Winter Park, former chair of the e-discovery rules, told the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists® - http://aceds.org/news/florida-ediscovery-rules-take-effect-september-1

Neutrals may ease anxiety over Florida’s new E-discovery rules

This podcast featuring my commentary just in from an interview with the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) Editorial Director, Robert Hilson: On March 7, the Florida Supreme Court heard argument on proposed E-discovery rules for state cases, the first such rules for the fourth largest state. The court has put them on fast track, and could approve them by the end of the year. The rules will affect the state’s diverse legal and corporate community and its 63,000 active attorneys. They aim to streamline case management, but they will also impose unfamiliar burdens on practitioners who are new to e-discovery. Neutral third parties, such as special masters, mediators and referees, may be able to assist in these instances. These so-called “neutrals” can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies that did not exist. Their services are not limited to grappling with old or new rules, or to discovery disputes. Lawrence Kolin, an Orlando lawyer and full-time mediator, chaired the Florida Bar committee that helped craft the e-discovery rules the Supreme Court is considering. In this ACEDS podcast, he tells how neutrals can help litigants navigate e-discovery pitfalls and resolve expensive battles before they arise. “I try to focus parties on the merits and try to get them off using e-discovery as a sword or shield,” says Kolin. “Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings if performed early enough in the litigation.” Podcast introduction: http://aceds.org/aceds-ediscovery-mediation-podcast-with-lawrence-kolin Listen to .mp3 here: http://aceds.org/sites/default/files/ACEDS%20Mediation%20Podcast%20with%20Neutral%20Lawrence%20Kolin.mp3

E-Neutrals and FL ESI rules

I spent the last couple of days at the national annual conference of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS). There were many vendors, attorneys and even court personnel attending. Of particular interest, was a pilot program developed by Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Robert Barth. That court has identified special masters and E-neutrals as fulfilling the need to effectively address issues presented by the preservation, collection and production of relevant Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during the litigation process. The parties in those cases reportedly benefit from the appointment of Electronic Discovery Special Masters (EDSMs) in appropriate cases. Any findings of fact or conclusions of law reached by the EDSM will be presented to the court as a report and recommendation, to which the parties have the opportunity to object, prior to a de novo review by the court (see details at - http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Pages/ediscovorey.htm). Florida's draft rules do include a case management topic of optional appointment of special magistrates in the event such issues need to be referred. This was discussed during an ACEDS panel I served on with my successor on the Florida Civil Rules Committee, Kevin Johnson. We also spoke on the likelihood of a decision from the Supreme Court of Florida concerning the proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and any time frame for implementation. Given the largely friendly reception during oral argument, it appears adoption of the language is imminent, but the forthcoming opinion could delay the effective date of the rules, given the Court's concern for educating the bench and bar.

ENE - Early Neutral Evaluation

Perhaps because of the still struggling economy or the realization during the recession that the cost of litigation is not trivial, Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) as a form of ADR has returned. This process, popular out West, is an offshoot of mediation that puts the neutral in the role enhancing direct communication between the parties about their claims and supporting evidence. ENE can provide an assessment of the merits of the case by a neutral expert in an early "reality check" for clients and lawyers. This helps to identify and clarify the central issues in dispute, assist with discovery (including E-discovery) and can streamline case management planning. A confidential exchange of factual information can help facilitate settlement discussions, once requested by the parties. A neutral with expertise in the subject matter typically hosts an informal meeting of clients and counsel. Following presentations, the evaluator identifies areas of agreement, clarifies and focuses the issues and encourages the parties to enter into any stipulation or agreement that is feasible, including settlement. The neutral case evaluator has no power to impose settlement and may not force a party to accept any proposed terms. The parties' formal discovery, disclosure and motion practice rights are fully preserved. The confidential evaluation is non-binding and is not shared with the trial court. If no settlement is reached, the case remains in litigation, but hopefully with the litigants better informed as to the risks, work still necessary and the monetary aspects of continuing on a track toward trial. A new publication from the ABA this year on ENE outlines the process - http://bit.ly/y49Y1u

Business Litigation "Pre-nups" and E-discovery Mediations

Mediators assist clients in pre-suit negotiations involving complex litigation all the time, but the focus at that juncture in a case is usually on damages and avoiding expenses that will be encountered if actual court litigation ensues. Attorneys who understand the importance of limiting downstream litigation costs should consider alternatives to what I call Mutually Assured Destruction, or pushing the nuclear E-Discovery button in a litigation where perhaps the amount in controversy does not justify the great expense of full-blown data discovery of this nature. Litigation "pre-nups" can include an E-discovery component, confidentially resolving issues of scope with binding agreements-- as well as mediation on the substantive issues-- before resorting to actual litigation. Legal authors in this field, Alison O'Neal Skinner and Mary Mack, have recently advocated taking advantage of these processes early in a case and believe a confidential exchange of proposals on how to create a workable E-discovery plan increases the chances of reaching mutual solutions. (http://bit.ly/e1g0tc) So next time you are thinking about/encountering the scorched earth discovery plan, try this approach first!