Cooperation Checklist from the Experts

With all the talk about the importance of cooperation in the electronic discovery process, it is interesting to see a checklist of items which some experts believe come within the ambit of "cooperation". At a recent Fios webinar, the faculty (Richard Braman of Sedona; retired magistrate now law school dean John Carroll; and Fios consultants Kenneth Rashbaum and Mary Mack) offered several examples of cooperation (a list which is, of course, by no means all inclusive):

* Exchanging information with opposing counsel on relevant data sources, including those not being searched;
* Scheduling early disclosures on the topics of ESI
* Joint development of search and retrieval methodologies
* Early identification of (and agreement upon) forms of production
* Development of case-long discovery budgets based upon proportionality principles
* Using court appointed experts, mediators or formal ADR programs to resolve discovery disputes
* Using in-house or third party "experts" to assist the attorney in drafting discovery requests and preparing responses (presumably to make sure the requests and responses are properly targeted and technologically correct.

The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation probably is now becoming required reading for litigators, given its widespread endorsement. However, checklists like the foregoing from the Fios presenters really advance the cause by putting some specifics on the process.

Egads! Cost is No Object for Complete E-Discovery

Thanks to Ralph Losey for pointing out a potential outrageous decision from the DC Circuit of the Court of Appeals, In Re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, 2009 WL 21538 (CADC, Jan. 6, 2009) in which the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight -- a third party to the litigation -- was required to spend more than $6 million, an amount equal to nine percent of its annual budget, to respond to an electronic discovery request by affirming the district court's contempt citation. In part, it appears that the court's rationale was that OFHEO undertook the work without objection and thus was stuck with the consequences of its own decision. Neither the cost of the project nor the fact that OFHEO was a third party seemed of much importance to the court.

Early in the e-discovery era (a couple of years ago on the pages of this history book), I came across an employment discrimination case in which a municipality was ordered by a district court to spend $100,000 to comply with an e-discovery request. Ironically, the maxium amount in dispute in that lawsuit was $100,000.

These two examples collectively demonstrate a process out of control. Embedded in the Federal Rules amendments was a concept of proprotionality, a concept articulated in the "not-reasonably accessible" provisions of Rule 26. That concept seems lost on most courts, however. A failure to carryout thorough and expensive searches for electronic discovery or to implement "best practice" methods for retrieval and production could result in sanctions. It is like walking through a minefield without a map. You don't know which mistake you make is going to explode in your face; you only know for sure that the risk of making a mistake is substantial.

If e-discovery is not to destroy the system it is meant to serve, courts must be more sensitive to the need to balance cost against the value derived.