ESI Protocol

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss a recent case regarding noncompliance with preservation provisions in an ESI protocol and provide best practices for negotiating and drafting an ESI protocol. In Part One of this series (which you can find here), I analyzed how courts have resolved ESI protocol disputes with TAR and metadata provisions.

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.

Document management systems allow users to send a link to a document directly from the system, ensuring that all recipients receive the same, most up to date version, and, often most importantly when it comes to efficiency, ensuring that only one person is working in a draft document at a time. When we email links to these documents, the document itself is not attached to the email; rather, a hyperlink to the document where it is housed on the document management system is attached. As an e-discovery professional, my next thought is….how do we handle these links in discovery? At least one court has grappled with this question and its decision sheds new light on how we can handle hyperlinked attachments in our own cases.

ESI Agreements cover the full gambit of e-discovery issues, from preservation expectations to production specifications. Sometimes, these agreements include an overview of the process by which the parties will identify the universe of potentially responsive documents by using specific date ranges, identifying priority custodians and developing proposed search terms. Adding another layer of complexity, this discussion is often had in a vacuum before the parties even know how much data their clients have. Coming up with criteria that identifies the relevant documents, but is not overly broad, in this vacuum can be difficult. However, the process is important because the date range, custodians and terms will inevitably dictate how much data is collected, processed and reviewed, which can significantly affect any litigation budget.