In 2022, litigators and eDiscovery practitioners faced many new developments and challenges. Companies grappled with how "the new normal" of the workplace impacts information governance policies. Lawyers contemplated how to navigate sanctions for spoliation of evidence being treated differently in different jurisdictions. And eDiscovery special masters rose to prominence as parties to complex lawsuits seek expertise and efficiency in complex discovery disputes. Highlights from Mayer Brown's Tip-of-the-Month coverage of these topics last year are recapped below.
- Adapting Information Governance and eDiscovery to the
"New Normal." The COVID-19 pandemic imposed a remote
working environment, particularly in professional services, which
persists in many organizations. This change also prompted—and
provided opportunities for—businesses to update their
information governance and eDiscovery protocol.
- Legal hold notices may now place a greater emphasis on data and documents stored outside an organization's offices and servers, given that more people are working outside the office.
- The increase in work-from-home opportunities also means that new strategies are needed for remote data collections. Companies may need to look beyond their own servers and physical offices to satisfy their discovery obligations.
- Data mapping can help face these challenges. It helps determine where information is stored, records a description of the data, and assigns responsibility for maintaining the data. This tool has seen a revival in light of the expansion of technological applications that have been implemented across the workplace as employees telework more regularly.
- Technological advances in document review enable legal teams to more easily assemble high-quality document review teams while streamlining the process, maintaining efficiency, and even better managing costs. This is especially true as remote work has become more prevalent. Now document review teams can be staffed from across the country instead of at a single location.
- Spoliation Sanctions for Electronic and Non-electronic
Evidence. An automobile manufacturer sues a car dealership in
federal court, arguing that the car dealership intentionally
damaged hundreds of engines. The dealership responds that the
engines at issue had been discarded or sent to the scrap yard, so
they are not discoverable. The dealership also claims that it has
no hard copies of reports detailing the defects and that the
electronic versions of these reports were deleted. The manufacturer
wants sanctions. What standard(s) could apply?
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)'s Standard for Electronically Stored Information- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was amended in 2015 to provide a uniform standard for courts to apply when assessing sanctions of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") sanctions. This rule helps ensure uniformity among jurisdictions and is in contrast to the standard for sanctions for the spoliation of tangible evidence.
- The Fourth Circuit Standard for Tangible Evidence- In the Fourth Circuit, sanctions for the spoliation of tangible evidence require a showing of culpability. Specifically, the court will not grant an adverse inference unless the party seeking sanctions can show that the destruction of tangible evidence was not an accident.
- The Seventh Circuit Standard for Tangible Evidence- In contrast, the Seventh Circuit sets a higher standard, requiring a showing of bad faith for any sanctions to be imposed in federal question cases or when the spoliation occurred after the initiation of the lawsuit. A different set of rules apply in diversity jurisdiction cases.
- However, for severe sanctions, such as an adverse inference, a dismissal, or default judgment, all courts agree that there must be a finding of bad faith and prejudice.
- What Is the Role of a Special Master in E-Discovery
Disputes? As civil litigation becomes more complex, special
masters have become more prevalent in discovery disputes. Some
jurisdictions have implemented an application process to become an
eDiscovery special master, ensuring that the appointed special
master bring particularized experience to the litigation.
- A special master can be appointed when (1) the parties consent to have a special master perform certain duties or (2) the judge decides a special master is needed to address pre-trial matters that the court itself cannot efficiently resolve.
- Special masters can bring efficiency and expertise to discovery. Even though the parties pay for the special master, the special master can help minimize the chance of disputes at the outset of litigation or can help efficiently resolve disputes once they arise. For example, a special master can help parties draft ESI and discovery protocol early in litigation as well as resolve disputes once litigation is well underway.
As we continue into 2023, and as discovery continues to take an even more prominent role in litigation, we expect that many of these trends and developments will continue and these tips will remain relevant.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.