Prior Publisher
The Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law (ADFSL)
Abstract
The rules of civil procedure in common law countries have been amended to better deal with the requirements of electronic discovery. One of the key changes in case management is the scheduling of a meet-and-confer session where the parties to litigation must meet early in the case before any discovery procedures have begun to exchange information regarding the nature, location, formats, and pertinent facts regarding custody and control of a party’s electronically stored information (ESI). Failure to abide by the rules and participate in good faith at the meet-and-confer session can have dire consequences for the parties and lawyers involved. The authors discuss the importance of creating and maintaining an ESI data map as a means to demonstrate good faith and effectively comply with the requirements of the meet-and-confer.
References
Civil Procedure , Rule 15.02(1)(a (Nova Scotia 2010).
Digicel case Digicel (St. Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless Plc [2008] 2522, 2522 (EWHC 2008).
DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS, PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B (Oct 2010).
Apotex, Inc v Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT, No 2718 (O.J. 2010).
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 5) , 1169 (NSWSC Nov 4, 2008).
Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr. , 2010 WL 2104639 (W.D.PA May 24, 2010).
Canadian Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30.04(5) para 6 (November 25, 2009).
Covad Commc'ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 147, 151 (D.D.C. 2008).
Deare, K. (2009, March 3). End of the Paper Chase: Federal Court unviels Ediscovery Ryles. Australia.
Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., WL 774186 (N.D.GA March 2, 2010).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 (f) (2007).
Gensler, S. (209). Electronic Discovery Issue: Article: Some Thoughts on the Lawyer's E-volving Duties in Discovery. N. Kentucky Law Rev , 521 -526.
Hopson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 5, 232 F.R.D. 228, 24 (D. MD 2006).
Luoma, M., & Luoma, V. (2010). Data Maps: A Best Practice for the Meetand-Confer. Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on E-Business, Management, and Economics. Hong Kong.
McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd, 73 (Unreported) (VSC March 2002).
Mikron Indus., Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., WL 1805727 (W.D. Wash April 21, 2008).
Practice Note No. 17: Pre-Discovery Conference Checklist at 4.1. (n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/pdfsrtfs_p/Practice_Note_No_17_PreDiscovery_Conf_Checklist.pdf
TELUS Communications Company v. Sharp, 2878 (CanLII) (ONSC 2010).
The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation. (2008). The Sedona Conference Working Group Series , 1-12.
Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors LLC, WL 3583064 (D.Conn September 7, 2010).
Wahid v. Malinovski, 2010, 2010,3249 (ONSC CanLII July 7, 2010).
Willging, E. G. (2009). ed Judicial L CTR., Case-Based Civil Rules Survey: Preliminary Report To The Judicial Conference E Advisory Committee On Civil Rules 15.
Working Group 7 . (2010). The Sedona Canada Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery. Sedona Conference Working Group , 1-40.
Recommended Citation
Luoma, Milton and Luoma, Vicki
(2010)
"Avoiding Sanctions at the E-Discovery Meet-And-Confer in Common Law Countries,"
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 5
, Article 4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2010.1084
Available at:
https://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol5/iss4/4
Included in
Computer Engineering Commons, Computer Law Commons, Electrical and Computer Engineering Commons, Forensic Science and Technology Commons, Information Security Commons
