Subscribe to the
to stay up-to-date on the latest e-discovery trends.
Top Five Steps to Prepare for the Ediscovery-Related Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Cloud Computing: Data Has a New House HOT RELEASE: Concordance® Evolution 2.2.1 LexisNexis now offers Near dupe and email thread software
CALLING ALL AUTHORS! Got an idea for an article? Like something we wrote? Take issue with something? We’d love to hear from you. We’re always looking for feedback.
Litigation can be a lot like those Russian matryoshka dolls. You know, the kind where you open one to find another, and another and another, etc.? This happens in litigation, when the parties lock horns over the search methods they will employ in e-discovery.
In the past, these disputes may have centered around opinions on what discovery techniques are best. However, with today's computer-assisted review technologies-which can examine infinitely more material than humans ever could-the risks of breaching attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine or other privacy rights are higher than ever.
So, what can be done?
That was the topic of an article written by WilmerHale attorneys Robert W. Trenchard and Steven Berrent for the March 19, 2012, issue of the New York Law Journal® published by ALM®.
In their article, "Disclosing Novel Document Review Methods," Trenchard and Berrent wrote that a "combination of statistical sampling, non-waiver and other agreements, and/or in-camera review by a judge or special master can help parties strike an appropriate balance between the goals of minimizing discovery disputes and of protecting other legitimate interests."
They recommended these methods (among others) to mitigate the risks of breaching privacy rights and privileges:
The WilmerHale attorneys recently told the LexisNexis® E-Discovery Brief that the challenges persist.
"The issue of whether and to what extent to disclose search methodologies continues to be a hot topic. Just recently, the Department of Justice [DOJ] inserted a request in its CIDs [Civil Investigative Demands] asking the respondent to identify its search methods, though how much disclosure is required in the eyes of the DOJ is unclear. As we mentioned in our article, courts too are asking for various degrees of disclosure of search methods," the attorneys told us.
"Undoubtedly," they continued, "some amount of disclosure is helpful to the parties and the courts in making the discovery process run smoothly. But the amount of disclosure must be weighed against legitimate work product considerations. Especially in certain contexts, too much disclosure about search terms, predictive coding methodologies, or other aspects of search and review could provide opposing counsel with unfair insight into counsel's opinions about strategy-classic core work product in our adversarial system. The proper accommodation of these competing concerns can only be worked out in light of the particular facts of a case."
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.