Possible Changes Ahead for eDiscovery Rules
September 8, 2011
E-discovery 2.0 asks, “New eDiscovery Rules on the Horizon?” Potential amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be discussed at a mini-conference scheduled for September 9, 2011 by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. Writer Matthew Nelson explains the significance of this meeting:
The mini-conference is important because it is part of a seven step process that could ultimately lead to new rule amendments affecting all litigators and the organizations they represent. Any new rule proposals developed by the subcommittee at the September mini-conference will be considered by the Advisory Committee this November in Washington D.C. The proposals, in one form or another, could ultimately become law. Both Supreme Court and Congressional approval are ultimately required.
One area that cries to be addressed is the controversial question, at what point does the duty to preserve evidence kick in? If the answer is when a complaint is served, that may leave too much leeway for evidence destruction at the first sign of a potential complaint.
Many feel that the current rules are too murky, making companies anxious about what they must do to avoid future sanctions. Further complicating the picture are questions about the impact of cloud computing on civil litigation.
We’re just at the beginning of the long process of amending these rules. If your business is concerned with eDiscovery, though, you’ll want to keep up on the progress.
Cynthia Murrell, September 8, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Comments
One Response to “Possible Changes Ahead for eDiscovery Rules”
Another area that I believe deserves review is the definition of “inaccessible data” – specifically separating previously deleted data from data fragments in unallocated space.
Processing and recovery of deleted data can be conducted in a cost effective manner via automated tools. Wherein recovery of fragmented data in unallocated space is a manual process that can be very time consuming and costly.