At the 2016 Conference on Preservation Excellence, six current and former federal judges discussed key e-discovery cases from the past year. Here are eight they explored in depth.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
It's all well and good to discuss the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) amendments—Legaltech News has done its fair share over the past nine-plus months since they went into effect. But in a practical sense, how are they being applied in courts?
As it turns out, it's been a mixed bag, and even federal judges don't agree on some of the nuances of how the new rules should be applied. At the 2016 Conference on Preservation Excellence (PREX), six current and former federal judges discussed 12 key e-discovery cases from the past year. Here are the eight cases the judges explored more in-depth, along with some insights from those in charge of making decisions.
The Cast
• Ron Hedges, former U.S. magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and current senior counsel, Dentons.
• Frank Maas, U.S. magistrate Judge, U.S. Southern District of New York
• Andrew Peck, U.S. magistrate judge, U.S. Southern District of New York
• Xavier Rodriguez, U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas
• Shira Scheindlin, former U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York and now of counsel with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York
• David Waxse, U.S. magistrate judge, U.S. District of Kansas
The Cases
1. O'Berry v. Turner (M.D. Ga.)
In this case, Turner, driving for ADM Trucking, crashed into O'Berry in 2013. Turner's manager, rather than preserving the employee's driving log electronically, printed out a paper copy of the log, put it in a manila folder, and subsequently lost the record during a move. "The court found that printing and storing a single printed copy did not constitute intent to preserve, but then the court took an additional step and said there was intent to deprive," Judge Scheindlin explained.
Judge Scheindlin: "The court really dwelled on the fact that nobody contacted this manager until February 2016, despite the fact the accident happened in 2013." She also added that ADM's acts were "shiftless," saying, "They were returning this information over, and to me it seemed purposeful."
Judge Peck, however, disagreed on the definition of intent: "To me, it is a clear purpose to deprive the other side of the information."
2. Shawe v. Elting (Del. Chancery Court)
In the case of a relationship gone wrong, the Delaware Chancery Court was asked to settle a dispute in which two parties were splitting up business assets of, ironically, a company that conducted e-discovery and other forensics. During discovery, Shawe gained access to ex-girlfriend Elting's emails, made an image of her computer, discarded his cellphone under circumstances the court called "inexplicable," and deleted emails that were later recovered. The court ordered Shawe to pay 33 percent of the other side's legal fees for the whole trial, as well as 100 percent of expenses incurred during litigation of sanctions hearings.
VIEW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)