LocalRules « e-Discovery Team

LocalRules

Local Rules Governing e-Discovery
in United States District Courts

As of November 1, 2007, at least 30 District Courts have enacted some kind of special rules to address e-discovery. The following is a list of the Local Rules identified to date:

Arkansas: Eastern and Western Districts
Local Rule 26.1 Outline for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report

Alaska
Local Form 26(f): Scheduling and Planning Conference Report (see item 4(B))
Local Rule 16.1 Pre-Trial Procedures (requiring use of Local Form 26(f) or one substantially similar)

California: Northern District
Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California: Contents Of Joint Case Management Statement (see item 6)
Local Rule 16-9 Case Management Statement and Proposed Order (requiring parties’ Joint Case Management Statement to include all topics listed in Standing Order)

Colorado
Appendix F: Scheduling Order
Instructions for Preparation of Scheduling Order

Connecticut
January 19, 2007 Order Amending Local Rules
Local Rules 16(b), 26, 37 and Form 26(F)

Delaware
Default Standards for Discovery of Electronic Documents

Florida: Middle District
Civil Discovery Practice Handbook (see Part VII “Technology”)

Florida: Southern District
Rule 16.1 Pretrial Procedure in Civil Actions
Rule 26.1 Discovery and Discovery Material (Civil)
Appendix A: Discovery Practices Handbook (see Part III, in particular)

Georgia: Southern District
Rule 26(f) Report

Illinois: Central District
Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order
Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal’s Suggested Form for Proposed Discovery Plan (Urbana Division)

Indiana: Northern District
Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting

Indiana: Southern District
Uniform Case Management Plan (see Part III(K))
Rule 16.1 Pretrial Procedures (requiring use of Uniform Case Management Plan)

Iowa: Northern and Southern Districts
Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan
Instructions and Worksheet for Preparation of Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan and Order Requiring Submission of Same
Local Rule 16.1 Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan (requiring use of form)
Local Rule 26.1 Pretrial Discovery and Disclosures (requirement to submit discovery plan satisfied by submission of form Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan)

Kansas
Guidelines for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling

Missouri: Eastern District
Local Rule 3.01. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26New Hampshire
Local Rule 26.1 Discovery Plan
Civil Form 2: Sample Discovery Plan

New Jersey
Local Rule 26.1 Discovery (see subpart (d))

Ohio: Southern District
Rule 26(f) Report of Parties (Western Division at Dayton)
Rule 26(f) Report of Parties (Eastern Division)

Ohio: Northern District
Default Standard for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (Appendix K)

Pennsylvania: Eastern District
Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting
Order Governing Electronic Discovery (District Judge Timothy J. Savage)
District Judge Timothy J. Savage’s Scheduling and Motion Policies and Procedures

Pennsylvania: Middle District
Local Rule 26.1 Duty to Investigate and Disclose

Pennsylvania: Western District
Local Rule 16.1.1 Scheduling and Pretrial Conferences - Generally (see item (B), requiring use of Appendix B form)
Appendix B: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report of the Parties (see item 11)

Tennessee: Eastern District
Form Scheduling Order (Knoxville) (Senior District Judge Leon Jordan) (see Item 4(d))
Form Scheduling Order (Knoxville) (District Judge Thomas A. Varlan) (see Item 4(d))
Form Scheduling Order (Chattanooga) (Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee) (see Item 5(a))

Tennessee: Western District
Form Scheduling Order (Western Division) (Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo)

Texas: Eastern District
Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Discovery Order, and Proposed Dates for Docket Control Order (Magistrate Judge John D. Love) (see item 2(A))

Texas: Northern District
Miscellaneous Order No. 62 (Dallas Division, Patent Cases) (see item 2.1(a)(2))

Vermont
Local Rule 26.1(b)(3) Discovery Schedule
Local Rule 26.1(b) Form: Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order

West Virginia: Southern District
Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting
Local Rule 16.1 Scheduling Conferences (requiring use of court’s form)

Wyoming
Local Rule 26.1 Discovery and Appendix D: Rule 26 Conference Checklist (see subpart (e) of local rule)

TEAM MISSION STATEMENT

1. Assist companies routinely involved in litigation to establish an e-discovery readiness team. The recommended team includes designated in-house legal counsel, IT and business management, and, where needed, the best e-discovery vendors and experts in the field. Our attorneys, technicians and other specialists help form, train and coach the team, but the client remains team owner and captain.

2. Meet with IT personnel and fully understand their data architecture and record retention practices, and then advocate and explain their position in the litigation process, appearing in court as co-counsel of record when necessary.

3. Guide in the creation and implementation of new systems to maintain records, preserve evidence, and timely respond to electronic discovery.

4. Provide high quality and consistent legal representation on e-discovery issues around the country, and work closely with local counsel, clients, and the courts to minimize costs and unnecessary disputes.

Sedona Principles, 2nd Ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.

2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.

3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.

4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.

6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.

8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.

9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.

10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.

11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.

12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.

13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.

14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.

Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.

Go to www.thesedonaconference.org to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.

MUCH DATA DO YOU HAVE?

CD = 650 MB = 50,000 pages. DVD = 4.7 GB = 350,000 pages. DLT Tape = 40/80 GB = 3 to 6 Million pages.
Super DLT Tape = 60/120 GB = 4 to 9 Million pages.

*************************** Page Estimates:
1 MB is about 75 pages;
1 GB is about 75,000 pages (pick-up truck full of documents).

Aver. pgs. per email: 1.5 (100,099 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per word document: 8 (64,782 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per spreadsheet: 50 (165,791 pages per GB).
Aver. pgs. per power point: 14 (17,552 pages per GB).

*************************** For the average .PST or .NSF Email File:
100 MB .PST file is 900 emails and 300 attachments.
400 MB .PST file is 3,500 emails and 1,200 attachments.
600 MB .PST file is 5,500 emails and 1,600 attachments.
A 1.00 GB .NSF file is 9,000 emails and 3,000 attachments.
A 1.5 GB .NSF file is 13,500 emails and 4,500 attachments.

*************************** Note: Many variables will affect ALL of the actual numbers above, including especially large image and video files, and recursive files.

*************************** Bits and Bytes Sizes:
•8 bits are equal to 1 byte (one or two words),
•1,024 bytes are equal to 1 kilobyte (KB).
•1,024 kilobytes (KB) are equal to 1 megabyte (MB or Meg).
•1,024 megabytes are equal to 1 gigabyte (GB or Gig) (truck full of paper).
•1,024 gigabytes are equal to 1 terabyte (TB) (50,000 trees of paper).
•1,024 terabytes are equal to 1 petabyte (PB) (250 Billion Pgs. of Text).
•1,024 petabytes are equal to 1 exabytes (EB) (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes).