US District Courts Begin to Address eDiscovery

Following on the heals of the December 2006 changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), many of the US District Courts have enacted special rules addressing eDiscovery. Following is an updated list of the US District Court local rules, standards, guidelines and forms that specifically address eDiscovery issues:

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

District of 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)

Northern District of California 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)

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

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

District of Delaware Default Standards for Discovery of Electronic Documents

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

Southern District of Florida 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)

Southern District of Georgia Rule 26(f) Report

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

Northern District of Indiana Report of Parties' Planning Meeting

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

Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa 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)

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

District of Maryland Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information

Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule 3.01. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

District of New Hampshire Local Rule 26.1 Discovery Plan Civil Form 2: Sample Discovery Plan

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

Northern District of Ohio Local Rules, Appendix K: Default Standards for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“E-Discovery”) Rule 16.3 Track Assignment and Case Management Conference

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

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 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

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

Western District of Pennsylvania 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)

Eastern District of Tennessee 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))

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

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

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

District of Vermont Local Rule 26.1 Discovery Local Form Rule 26.1(b): Stipulated Discovery Schedule/Order

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

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

For more information on the local rules of United States District Courts, click here to see a page with links to all the District Courts’ web pages.

Labels: Discovery, eDiscovery, FRCP, United States District Courts

posted by Charles Skamser @ 12:33 PM 0 Comments

Local Copy Shops in the New eDiscovery Paradigm

Historically, small to medium sized local Litigation Service Providers built very lucrative and sustainable business models around providing dependable and personal paper copying and imaging services for their local legal markets. Friday morning Doughnuts for the paralegals, golf outings for the partners, an occasional tradeshow boondoggle for the associates, and great Christmas gifts for everyone was the magic formula for maintaining these relationships in a market where there wasn’t any hope of developing any type of key competitive advantage beyond owning the relationship.

There was, for a time, some amount of success for national players entering the local markets using what they believed were economies of scale. This assumption has long since been proven false. And, recently, some of the more successful local providers have played their exit strategy cards by either merging with or selling out to regional rollup players. However, at least for now, these small to medium sized Litigation Service Providers still own the local markets.So, how are these providers going to react to the new eDiscovery Paradigm? Or, of even more significance to the long term and continued success of these providers, how are their clients going to react to their lack of ability to offer viable solutions in the new eDiscovery Paradigm? During the copy boom years, it wasn’t too hard to offer a quality product. And, even with the advent of imaging, it still didn’t take a rocket scientist to offer a quality product. However, now these providers have a whole new set of issues driven by changes in the rule of civil procedure at the both the federal and state levels along with all of associated and required technologies. Of even more concern is the fact that mistakes and quality control issues can now lead to sanctions or worse for the litigator and its partners.

As a result, Friday morning doughnuts can no longer be the determining factor in who firms choose to complete its litigation services work. It’s now a matter that can be at the very heart of a firm’s success of failure.

As any successful business strategist knows, “turmoil creates opportunity”. So, I believe that there are some tremendous opportunities in this market and a result there are going to be some big winners and some big losers.

In the coming weeks, I will be posting my impressions of how these dramatic new requirements from the new eDiscovery Paradigm will affect the small to medium sized local Litigation Service Providers, who I believe will survive and who I believe will not and what I think the magic formula is for continued success in this market. I would encourage anyone reading this Blog with any opinions and/or stories regarding the future of these providers to submit them for inclusion in my report.

Labels: Discovery, eDiscovery, ESI, FRCP, Litigation, Litigation Service Providers

posted by Charles Skamser @ 5:12 PM 0 Comments