Favro

2023年5月17日

书评:菲尔Favro的“选择eDiscovery和ESI判例法从2022 - 23”,嵌入的代码复制并粘贴到你的网站或者博客:< iframe帧边缘= = " 620 "滚动=“1”高度src = " / /www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?“汽车”fid = c9cac457 bcf5 - 4 - cf1 a00a - 52847496 c156”风格= "边境:2 px固体# ccc;overflow-x:隐藏!重要;溢出:隐藏;“宽度= " 100% " > < / iframe >形象,凯莉沃尔斯塔德,EDRM菲尔Favro和塞多纳会议发布了“选择eDiscovery和ESI判例法从2022 - 23”(2023)。这是一个续集菲尔的2021 - 22日出版。之前我写的书是“一个很好的资源在一个不断变化的领域。”[1]在之前的工作中,菲尔的新出版的主题领域和重要的。每个案例总结是清晰、到位。等主题,总结组织合作,发现数据库,Fed.R.Evid。502年,搜索方法,道德,和应急服务国际公司的协议,以及许多其他人。我只会给两个例子。 First, Phil described Fluor Fed.Sols., LLC v. BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys., Inc., 2023 WL 1871107 (W.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2023). There, a tardy production occurred after defendant’s electronic discovery provider ‘mistakenly de-duplicated documents against its entire database, instead of using the specific environment with documents to be produced; thereby incorrectly excluding the documents from production as ‘duplicates.’” Phil wrote about the value of voluntary disclosure of errors: Despite the issue of vendor error, the court reasoned that defendant took appropriate steps to remediate any harm by both notifying plaintiff and the court of the underproduction of documents and then making a speedy production of the 79,000 documents. Sanctioning defendant under this circumstance, reasoned the court, would ‘only serve to discourage parties from disclosing and addressing discovery errors in the future.’” [emphasis added]. Phil Favro, Innovative Driven “Despite the issue of vendor error, the court reasoned that defendant took appropriate steps to remediate any harm by both notifying plaintiff and the court of the underproduction of documents and then making a speedy production of the 79,000 documents. Sanctioning defendant under this circumstance, reasoned the court, would ‘only serve to discourage parties from disclosing and addressing discovery errors in the future.’” [emphasis added]. Phil has previously written about the value of voluntary disclosure. P. Favro, “New Federal Cases Spotlight 2021’s Key Trends in E-Discovery” ( Law.com May 13, 2021). [2] This is an important concept. Second, Phil described an important ethical obligation, writing: “Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, No. 1:19-CV-137, 2022 WL 17687491 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022). In this complex trade secret case involving various discovery disputes, the court cited Sedona Principle Six for the proposition that the party responding to discovery must properly supervise its discovery vendor and—in connection with that process— ensure that ‘its directions to the vendor are complete and accurate.’ Against this backdrop, the court criticized a defendant (Liberty Steel) for failing to effectively ‘coordinate with its ESI vendor to ensure application of the correct search terms,’ which ‘required ‘do-over’ discovery, and kept a significant volume of responsive information from Plaintiffs.’” [emphasis added]. That is an important “lesson learned.”