new FRCP rules influence state court guidelines

Section 29 of the American Bar Association Standards Relating to Elec­tronic Discovery (August 2004) provides a definition of elec­tronically stored information (ESI) as “any information created, stored, or best utilized with computer technology of any type.”

In August 2006, the Conference of Chief Justices (“CCJ”) approved “Guidelines for State Trial Courts Re­garding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information.” The guidelines are intended to reduce the uncertainty in how state courts address production of electronic informa­tion in the discovery process. However, they are not bind­ing on state courts, as each court may use them to address electronic discovery issues as it sees fit.

The guidelines are being distributed to state judicial educators and to state court judges, explained Richard Van Duizend, the CCJ reporter. “The guidelines will benefit all judges who are coming upon these issues for the first time,” he observed.

Although similar to the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which barring an act of Congress, are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2006, the guidelines do contain some differences. The guidelines are summarized and discussed below, and the applicable differences are highlighted.

Responsibility of Counsel to be Informed About Client’s ESI

This guideline is consistent with the burgeoning case law that when it is appropriate and reasonable, counsel must become familiar with the operation of the client’s rel­evant information management systems, including how in­formation is received, stored, and retrieved. The proposed changes to the Federal Rules require such knowledge in preparation for the initial disclosures and the early meeting of counsel. See Rules 26(a)(1) and 26(f).

Agreement by Counsel; Pre-Conference Orders

This guideline tells judges to encourage counsel to meet and confer in order to voluntarily come to agreement on electronic discovery issues. The judge is also instructed to direct counsel to exchange information that will expe­dite the discovery process. While acknowledging the list of information subject to discovery should be tailored to each case, the guidelines encourage the judge to consider the following: (1) list of persons most knowledgeable about the storage and retrieval of electronically stored informa­tion and a brief description of each person’s responsibili­ties; (2) list of most likely custodians (other than the party) of relevant data, including each custodian’s responsibili­ties, contact information, and description of the relevant data; (3) list of each electronic system that may contain relevant electronically stored information and each poten­tially relevant electronic system operating during the time periods relevant to the matters in dispute; (4) indication of whether relevant data may be of limited accessibility or du­ration of existence; (5) list of relevant data stored offsite or on offline systems; (6) description of efforts undertaken to preserve relevant data; (7) preferred form of produc­tion; and (8) notice of any reasonably anticipated problems that may arise in connection with disclosure or production compliance.

Initial Discovery Conference

This guideline encourages a hearing after the exchange of information in guideline 3 to discuss issues such as form of production, inaccessible data, inadvertent disclosure, preservation procedures, and allocation of costs.

Scope of Electronic Discovery

This guideline recommends that when a discovery re­quest related to ESI is contested, judges should first deter­mine whether the information is relevant. Once this ques­tion is answered, the guideline offers a list of 13 factors for judges to consider in balancing the benefits and burdens of requiring discovery.

Form of Production

This guideline is based in part on the proposed amend­ments to Federal Rules 34(b)(ii) and (iii) which permit pro­duction of ESI in either the format in which the informa­tion is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable. In the absence of an agreement among the parties, only one format should be selected.

The comments to this guideline also address native file production, noting that files produced in native format pro­vide the metadata and are more easily stored, but they are difficult to search without the software needed to organize and present the information in a reasonably usable format. The guidelines reserve the question of whether metadata are discoverable for determination based on the particular circumstances of the case.

Reallocation of Discovery Costs

This guideline follows the three-tiered cost-shifting principles set forth in Zubulake III, including the factors judges should follow when determining whether cost-shift­ing is appropriate. The comments to this guideline indicate the proposed cost/benefit analysis will encourage request­ing parties to carefully assess whether all the information sought is worth paying for while discouraging the produc­ing party from storing the information in such a way as to make it extraordinarily costly to retrieve.

Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information

This guideline addresses the fact that due to the sheer volume of electronic information produced by the parties, information considered privileged might be inadvertently produced during discovery. However, unlike the Federal Rules, this guideline sets forth five factors for a judge to determine whether a party has waived the attorney-client privilege: (1) the total volume of information produced by the responding party; (2) the amount of privileged informa­tion disclosed; (3) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged infor­mation; (4) the promptness of the actions taken to notify the receiving party; and (5) the reasonable expectations and agreements of counsel. The Federal Rules do not offer any substantive law on the doctrine of waiver, but rather provide a mechanism for the sequestration or return of in­advertently produced documents pending a judge’s deter­mination of the substantive law.

Preservation Orders

This guideline sets forth the factors judges should con­sider when evaluating a motion for preservation of elec­tronic evidence. The guideline states that preservation orders should be narrowly tailored, and should consider various factors, including: the threat to the existence and integrity of the information in question; the likelihood of irreparable harm to the requesting party absent a preserva­tion order; the capability of the responding party to main­tain the information sought in its original form; and the physical, technological, and financial burdens created if the court orders preservation of the information.


This guideline sets forth three factors for judges consid­ering sanctions based on the destruction of electronically stored information. Absent exceptional circumstances, sanctions would be awarded only if: (1) a legal obliga­tion to preserve existed at the time of data destruction; (2) the destruction was not part of a routine and good faith operation of an electronic information system; and (3) the destroyed information was subject to production in discov­ery. Click the hyperlink at the end of this message for a copy of the Conference of Chief Justices’ “Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information”.
Copyright 2006 CyberControls, LLC All rights reserved

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s