E-Discovery

As the amount of electronically stored information (“ESI”) continues to grow at an exponential rate, basic E-Discovery knowledge becomes increasingly essential for litigators and legal professionals alike across a variety of practice areas. And yet, it does not appear that law schools are keeping up with E-Discovery’s ever-growing consequence. While a handful of law schools do offer standalone E-Discovery courses, it is far from the norm. Mere passing references to E-Discovery in higher education are inadequate to prepare future lawyers for the realities of the legal profession in this digital age.

New technologies are being created and utilized every year. The most significant developments lately are the rise of chatbots - software applications that allow for online chat conversation via text or text-to-speech, without any direct contact with a human operator. Currently, the chatbot garnering the most attention is OpenAI’s ChatGPT program. This article will focus on this technology and how it works either for or against the E-Discovery review process.

An MBA professor of mine used to be fond of saying “data drives decisions.” His point was that the more information you could get, the more informed the decision you could make. In the context of document review, daily reports can be a timely and efficient method of communicating that critical information. The first few days, and even weeks, of any document review project are full of questions and uncertainty. Does the mere mention of a term make the documents responsive? How substantive does the document have to be to be considered “hot”? Am I tagging too many documents as “not responsive”? One way to gauge whether a document review is on the right track is by having the people reviewing the documents submit daily reports describing what they are seeing and how they are coding those documents.

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss lessons learned and provide best practices for complying with discovery obligations. In Part One of this blog series, we analyzed Burris v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., a case in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because of Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” which posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available." As litigants and legal practitioners, we can learn from the Court's decision in Burris and ensure we don't make the same mistakes.

In Part One of this blog series, I discuss a case that makes clear the importance of complying with discovery obligations. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s “extensive misconduct and deception, without any obvious contrition or awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct” posed a serious risk any further proceedings would be “plagued” by a similar pattern of discovery abuse and deception that would make “it impossible for the district court to conduct a trial with any reasonable assurance that the truth would be available” and ordered Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice. Indeed, although the old adage dictates that to the victor go the spoils, there are no spoils and no victory for one who engages in spoliation. 

Two recent decisions highlight the usefulness of phased e-discovery as a tool to satisfy Rule 26(b)(1)’s ever-important proportionality requirement. Model orders for patent cases in numerous courts require phased discovery, typically phasing email discovery to occur after other discovery and only if deemed necessary. However, phased discovery is becoming prevalent in other types of cases as well.