Law Commons^™

Electronic Discovery Sanctions In The Twenty-First Century, Shira A. Scheindlin, Kachana Wangkeo

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

At the federal level, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee has responded to the "unique and necessary feature of computer systems--the automatic recycling, overwriting, and alteration of electronically stored information"--with a proposed amendment to Rule 37. The proposed Rule 37(f) would shield litigants from sanctions for the destruction of electronic data if the party "took reasonable steps to preserve the information after it knew or should have known the information was discoverable in the action" and "the failure resulted from the loss of the information because of the routine operation of the party's electronic information system." The safe harbor provision would …

Comments On A Class Action Rule For Mississippi Comments, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

In my primary contribution to this Symposium, I address whether Mississippi ought to adopt a class action rule. In that article, I show that the lack of a class action rule prevents neither mass disputes nor mass aggregate litigation. I argue that for some mass disputes, class actions provide a superior mechanism for dispute resolution, and that Mississippi therefore should adopt a rule permitting class actions. There is another important question, however, which is what such a rule should contain if adopted. Indeed, the questions of whether to permit class actions and what a class action rule should contain are …

The Lawyer Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks: Reconsidering The Contemporaneous Objection Requirement In Depositions, E. Stewart Moritz

Akron Law Faculty Publications

The time has come to eliminate the contemporaneous objection requirement for depositions.

From the original 1938 framing of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) to the present, no one has recognized that the theory behind the contemporaneous objection rule in depositions, as drawn from pre-Rules equity practice, does not match the function of depositions in our post-Rules system of open discovery. Pre-Rules depositions in the federal courts were exclusively testimony-preservation devices, and never discovery tools. The common law and statutory procedural rules for pre-Rules depositions, including the contemporaneous objection rule, reflected this use . But when the original Federal …

The Lawyer Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks: Reconsidering The Contemporaneous Objection Requirement In Depositions, E. Stewart Moritz

E. Stewart Moritz

The time has come to eliminate the contemporaneous objection requirement for depositions. From the original 1938 framing of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) to the present, no one has recognized that the theory behind the contemporaneous objection rule in depositions, as drawn from pre-Rules equity practice, does not match the function of depositions in our post-Rules system of open discovery. Pre-Rules depositions in the federal courts were exclusively testimony-preservation devices, and never discovery tools. The common law and statutory procedural rules for pre-Rules depositions, including the contemporaneous objection rule, reflected this use . But when the original Federal …

“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 …

Zubulake V. Ubs Warburg: Evidence That The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Provide The Means For Determining Cost Allocation In Electronic Discovery Disputes, Bahar Shariati

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mississippi Class Actions And The Inevitability Of Mass Aggregate Litigation, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

It's not about whether there will be mass aggregate litigation, but how. As long as the economy features mass marketing, mass employment, mass entertainment, mass transportation, mass production of goods, and mass provision of services, disputes will arise in which a mass of claimants seek relief from a common defendant or set of defendants. Lawyers on both sides naturally handle such matters collectively rather than individually. With or without the judicial imprimatur of class certification, multi- claimant disputes routinely are litigated and resolved on a collective basis. The real question is not whether there will be mass litigation, but whether …

Restyling The Civil Rules: Clarity Without Change, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Devoted fans and casual users of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will feel mixed emotions on contemplating the Style Project that aims to rewrite every rule from Rule 1 to the end. Well they might. The Style Project's purpose is simply stated. The Civil Rules, created in an inspired fit of creativity, have been amended repeatedly over the years. Experience has shown that even inspired initial drafting could not avoid all misadventures and that amendments drafted by successive generations wielding different drafting tools do not always fit well. The present rules can be reworked to say more clearly what …