Evidence Commons^™

Managing Preservation Obligations After The 2006 Federal E-Discovery Amendments, Thomas Y. Allman

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2006 Amendments or the Amendments) do not directly address the onset or scope of preservation obligations. As noted in the September 2005 Report of the Standing Committee of the Judicial Conference recommending adoption of the 2006 Amendments, preservation obligations “arise from independent sources of law” and are dependent upon “the substantive law of each jurisdiction.” However, the Amendments have a major impact on how parties must analyze and execute preservation obligations involving electronically stored information (“ESI”).

In Pursuit Of Frcp 1: Creative Approaches To Cutting And Shifting The Costs Of Discovery, Mia Mazza, Emmalena K. Quesada, Ashley L. Sternberg

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The most important rule of all is the last sentence of [FRCP] 1, which provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ‘shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’ It is this command that gives all the other rules life and meaning and timbre in the realist world of the trial court.

Proving Lost Profits Under Daubert: Five Questions Every Court Should Ask Before Admitting Expert Testimony, Robert M. Lloyd

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Contains Cover, Table Of Contents, Letter From The Editor, And Masthead, Charlotte A. Dauphin

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

I hope you enjoy the third issue of the Richmond Journal of Law and Technology for the 2006-2007 academic year, our Annual Survey of Electronic Discovery. This is our first annual survey since the new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which at the time of this publication have been in effect for several months, that affect electronic discovery in several significant ways. The entire staff of the Journal has worked diligently to bring these articles to our readers. Whether you are new to the Journal and electronic discovery, or whether you are a long-time reader, you will …

The 2006 Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure: Accessible And Inaccessible Electronic Information Storage Devices, Why Parties Should Store Electronic Information In Accessible Formats, Benjamin D. Silbert

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Discovery jurisprudence is a cornerstone of civil litigation in the United States. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as adopted in 1938, introduced a broad discovery process, which was not a previously accepted practice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been revised several times since 1938, reflecting the evolution of society. However, prior to 2006, 1970 was the last time the discovery rules were amended to take into account changes in information technology. In the last thirty-seven years, technological advances in electronic storage and communication have changed the way people live and how business is conducted, beyond what could …

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

The authors have endeavored to select from the many appellate cases those that have the most significant precedential value. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes enacted by the General Assembly in the areas of criminal law and procedure.

Introduction: Contains Cover, Table Of Contents, Letter From The Editor, And Masthead, Neal H. Lewis

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Welcome to the fourth issue and final of the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology for the 2005-2006 academic year. Volume 12, Issue 4 is the second publication of the Journal’s Annual Survey on Electronic Discovery. The topic of Electronic Discovery is particularly relevant considering the impending applicability of the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Annual Survey Editor has worked extensively to bring together different commentary on Electronic Discovery.

A Duty Everlasting: The Perils Of Applying Traditional Doctrines Of Spoliation To Electronic Discovery, Michael R. Nelson, Mark H. Rosenberg

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding electronic discovery are expected to take effect on December 1, 2006. These amendments are designed to alleviate the burden, expense and uncertainty that has resulted from the application of traditional discovery principles in the electronic age. These principles worked well in an era where discovery was primarily limited to the production of paper documentation, but have proved unworkable when applied to the discovery of electronic data, particularly in the “corporate world,” where even the most routine business discussions are captured in electronic format.5

The Impact Of The Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules, Thomas Y. Allman

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Because of a conviction that e-discovery presents unique issues requiring uniform national rules, the Judicial Conference of the United States (“Judicial Conference”) has recommended and the Supreme Court has approved a number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Proposed Rules”), which are scheduled to go into effect at the end of 2006.

Waiving The Privilege In A Storm Of Data: An Argument For Uniformity And Rationality In Dealing With The Inadvertent Production Of Privileged Materials In The Age Of Electronically Stored Information, Dennis R. Kiker

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

At the point where one of the most venerable principles of common law and the reality of modern information management collide, even the most diligent attorneys may become victims of the resulting fallout.

Shifting Burdens And Concealing Electronic Evidence: Discovery In The Digital Era, Rebecca Rockwood

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

In the twenty-first century, persons involved in the legal profession will be forced to confront technological issues. Computers and technology have pervaded every aspect of society, and the legal system is no exception. The discovery process is a dramatic example of how lawyers and courts strain to keep up with technological advances. Traditional discovery practices have been severely overhauled as electronic information becomes increasingly prevalent. What was once a simple discovery request can now become an overwhelming task, as defendants must wade through a plethora of electronic documents in an attempt to comply with the court’s discovery orders.

The Electronic Recording Of Criminal Interrogations, Roberto Iraola

University of Richmond Law Review

Should law enforcement officers be required to record, by video or audiotape, custodial interrogations of suspects? If so, how much, the entire interrogation or just the confession? Many prosecutors and police departments maintain that a recording requirement will hamper law enforcement and discourage suspects from talking. Proponents of this measure argue that the recording of interrogations protects against false confessions, augments the effective administration of justice, and serves to improve the relationship between the public and the police.

This article generally examines the developing case law on this question. Because of the incriminating nature of confessions, the article, by way …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Marla G. Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

This article examines the most significant cases from the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia over the past year. The article also outlines some of the most consequential changes to the law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during the 2005 Session in the field of criminal law and procedure.

Groh V. Ramirez: Strengthening The Fourth Amendment Particularity Requirement, Weakening Qualified Immunity, C. Brandon Rash

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Evidentiary Paradox: Defending The Character Evidence Prohibition By Upholding A Non-Character Theory Of Logical Relevance, The Doctrine Of Chances, Edward J. Imwinkelried

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Collaborative Navigation Of The Stormy E-Discovery Seas, Robert Douglas Brownstone

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Seventy years ago, when the world was still paper-based, a famous lyricist wrote: “Say, it’s only a paper moon [s]ailing over a cardboard sea. But it wouldn’t be make-believe [i]f you believed in me.” Jump to today’s digital world, and imagine those lines re-written in an e-mail from a litigator to a client: “Now, underneath each paper moon is a vast electronic sea. If you plot a realist’s course you’ll cruise e-Discovery.” In the twentieth century, while civil litigation often wallowed in discovery disputes, at least paper’s one-dimensional nature provided several boundaries. The expansive powers of …

Electronic Discovery Best Practices, Virginia Llewellyn

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The concept of electronic discovery is still somewhat intimidating to many attorneys, but those who have learned to implement electronic discovery best practices are enjoying the advantages it offers, which include greater control over document review and production processes as well as significant cost reductions. Whether you come to the discovery process as in-house or outside counsel, you can anticipate some of the issues involved in responding to electronic data requests. Pre-review cooperation among in-house counsel, their litigators, and Information Technology (IT) personnel is ideal for planning a successful electronic discovery response.

“Do I Really Have To Do That?” Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures And Electronic Information, David J. Waxse

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

When the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were formally adopted by United States Supreme Court Order on December 20, 1937, the emergence of computers and electronic information and their widespreadusewerehardlycontemplated. AlthoughtheFederalRulesof Civil Procedure have been amended on occasion to accommodate changing technology, the advent of the computer age creates new challenges for litigants, their attorneys, and the courts as they strive to apply traditional rules in an innovative technological environment. This article discusses just one aspect of that challenge: the fact that the vast majority of information now exists in electronic format and the impact of this reality on …

Negotiating The Minefields Of Electronic Discovery, Stephen D. Williger, Robin M. Wilson

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

A company’s employee has sued for sexual harassment, age discrimination, or wrongful termination. Or, as another example, the company has been sued for infringement of intellectual property, breach of contract, fraud, or any number of other business reasons. During the course of discovery, the plaintiff serves discovery requests, including a request for data that has been deleted from the company’s electronic records but may still be contained within the company’s backup systems. The search for this data is time consuming and expensive. Discoverable materials may be found in the company’s backup system, but does that possibility justify the lost productivity …

New Technology, Old Defenses: Internet Sting Operations And Attempt Liability, Audrey Rogers

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law, Marla Graff Decker, Stephen R. Mccullough

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law And Procedure, Julie E. Mcconnell, Gregory Franklin, Craig Winston Stallard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Family Law, Elizabeth P. Coughter, Ronald R. Tweel

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …

United States V. Hubbell: Encryption And The Discovery Of Documents, Greg Sergienko

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Five years ago, in a contribution to these pages, I suggested that the Supreme Court's oldest precedents and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution precluded the use of evidence produced under a grant of immunity against the producer, even though the material produced included documents that the producer had not been compelled to write. This implied that information concealed with a cryptographic key could not be used in a criminal prosecution against someone from whom the key had been obtained under a grant of immunity.

Balancing Hearsay And Criminal Discovery, John G. Douglass

Law Faculty Publications

and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend …

The Extension Of The Bruton Rule At The Expense Of Judicial Efficiency In Gray V. Maryland, Richard F. Dzubin

University of Richmond Law Review

"An argument broke out between [Kevin] and Stacey in the 500 block of Louden Avenue. Stacey got smacked and then ran into Wildwood Parkway. Me, [Kevin], and a few other guys ran after Stacey .... We beat Stacey up."

Admissibility Of Evidence In Virginia: A Manual For Virginia Trial Lawyers, 2nd Edition, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

This book compiles statutory and case law dealing with the admissibility of evidence. An alphabetical format keyed into subject headings is utilized in order to facilitate quick, accurate access to cases and statutes which answer most basic evidentiary questions. We have also tried, where feasible, to use the language of the court or statute rather than our own interpretation. We believe this approach most usefully serves the purposes of providing a quick, authoritative answer. The format does not allow for extended theoretical discussion, nor does it purport to be an exhaustive survey of all relevant cases. The reader is encouraged …

"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton

University of Richmond Law Review

It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy "science," phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor's clothes of expert testimony.