7th circuit e-discovery pilot program

In case you were wondering, I did not talk to myself before the ruling. The mock hearing was unique in many respects, including the quality of argument and expert testimony by my fellow panelists. Participating with me in the mock panel playing the roles of counsel and experts were:. The mock hearing presentation was also unusual in that it showed the pre-hearing preparation efforts of counsel and the parties. We watched as attorneys pretended to speak with their clients about predictive coding, and their experts.

They dialogued, they argued, and they succeeded in narrowing the issues down for a ruling. I heard later that this method worked well to get a few important points across, although it was difficult for Martin and Karl who had to pretend that they were Luddites , well, at least anti-predictive-coding.

After the mock panel, the event concluded with a roundtable of experts discussing predictive coding, which we referred to as Computer Assisted Review or Technology Assisted Review. I was again honored to serve on the panel along with:. See: Phase Two Report. For more on information on the 7th Circuit Pilot program see their website at www. I think they have made fantastic progress and now serve as a role model for the whole country.

They are so important in my opinion that I reproduce them here in full. This is a great set of principles and I like the language and terminology they use. Speaking of language, I began calling my specially trained e-discovery lawyers e-discovery liaisons back in my current firm now has at least one liaison for each office.

It is a catchy name, and I totally agree with the 7th Circuit that you should have experts like this involved wherever there is a significant e-discovery case. The Phase Two Report observes in the Executive Summary that the principles are having the desired effect on the practice of law among attorneys in the 7th Circuit jurisdiction.

I only wish that other jurisdictions would follow suit because there is, believe me, a strong need for this influence on attorneys all over the country.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2. Both comments and pings are currently closed. Ralph, thanks so much for the mention of our Program in your blog, the resulting exposure I hope it brings tor our Pilot… and, of course, for your invaluable participation in our workshop yesterday. I echo your sentiment that our Principles are meant to be a step in the right direction…. There are many Principles I could single out as critically important, but the one we definitely tried to shine a bright light on during the mock was the idea that cooperation is possible, even for zealous advocates, and often, it is in the best interest of the clients.

Like Like. The event, which was previously described here, was held in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the Everett M. Dirksen Courthouse in downtown Chicago on […]. That sounds like a great place to have been. I cannot wait for the video when it is available. All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients.

No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such. Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books.

He is also the founder of Electronic Discovery Best Practices , and e-Discovery Team Training , an online education program that arose out of his five years as an adjunct professor teaching e-Discovery and Evidence at the UF School of Law. Ralph is also publisher and principle author of this blog and many other instructional websites. Ralph is a specialist who has limited his legal practice to electronic discovery and tech law since He has a special interest in software and the search and review of electronic evidence using artificial intelligence, and also in general AI Ethics.

Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since His full biography may be found at RalphLosey. Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, and Adam Losey, a lawyer with cyber expertise married to another cyber expert lawyer, Catherine Losey , and best of all, husband since to Molly Friedman Losey , a mental health counselor in Winter Park.

Email Address:. Binomial Confidence Interval Calculator. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed.

As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.

The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of relevant electronically stored information.

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

The primary source of electronically stored information to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.

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.

Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.

The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.

Go to www. Blog at WordPress. Pomladna kolekcija - Beti. All Aboard collection. Digital Artwork. Artwork by Sarah Kaizer. Carteles M C. Related Books Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd. Uncommon Carriers John McPhee. The Art of War Sun Tsu. Related Audiobooks Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd. Elizabeth Howell. Good luck! Views Total views.

Actions Shares. No notes for slide. Seventh Circuit Ediscovery Pilot Program 1. Puiszis 2. Principles serve as supplemental procedural guidelines in selected cases. Thirteen judges will participate in selected cases during Phase 1 of the program through May 1, Questionnaires to be completed by participating judges and lawyers. Results will be presented to the Seventh Circuit at its annual meeting in May Principle 1.

To promote the early resolution of ediscovery disputes without court intervention. Mayflower Textile Servs. Principle 2. If a party fails to participate or cooperate in good faith or is impeding these principles, the court may require additional party discussions before discovery begins or impose sanctions if appropriate. Practical tips for limiting ediscovery costs and burdens. If you have filed a potentially dispositive motion, consider bringing a motion to stay discovery pursuant to Rule 26 c.

Select Portfolio Servs. Lockheed Martin Corp. Practical tips for limiting ediscovery costs and burdens See Principles 2.

See Mancia v. Liaison can be an in-house or outside counsel, third party consultant or company employee. Vague and overbroad preservation orders should not be sought or entered. Tip: See Frey v. Gainey Transp. See Realnetworks, Inc. May 5, ; Goodman v.

Praxair Servs. See Goodman, F. If in doubt, advise client to preserve and promptly issue a litigation hold letter. If you send a response, take care not to assume a duty for your client or disclose privileged information or work product.

Attorney litigation hold letters are privileged. See Muro v. Target Corp. Parties should address preservation issues at the outset and should continue to address them as the case progresses. May be appropriate but can cause unnecessary expense and delay and inappropriately implicate attorney work-product and privileged matters. Before such discovery occurs the parties must confer about: 1 the need for such discovery and its relevance to issues likely to arise; and 2 the suitability of alternative means to obtain that information.

Does not exempt a deponent from answering questions about preservation and collection of ESI. Tip: Discuss whether there is any duty to preserve inaccessible ESI.