LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By JAY BRUDZ and LAURENCE V. PARKER, JR. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 2006 to acknowledge the increasing significance of electronically stored information in litigation. These amendments and similar amendments to state rules have cemented the importance of electronic discovery or "eDiscovery" in the litigation discovery process. In addition to being complex and voluminous, eDiscovery can be associated with significant costs to the producing party. These can include the costs of production, the costs of preservation and the potential for spoliation sanctions. Prior to producing electronic information, it can cost upwards of $30,000 per gigabyte for a producing party to conduct a review of electronically stored information for relevance and privilege prior to production. In addition, there are costs associated with implementation of preservation policies and tools, and the disruption to employees' productivity when dealing with legal holds and collection. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for significant sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information, but fortunately sanctions are rare. Absent fraud, public policy concerns or unconscionability, courts routinely enforce provisions that modify the litigation process such as jury trial waivers, forum selection clauses, governing law provisions, and arbitration provisions. In some cases, these contractual provisions have become so common that parties think of them as "boilerplate." Given the willingness of courts to uphold other contractual clauses that modify the litigation process, it is likely that courts would uphold provisions that attempt to deal with some of the issues that make eDiscovery particularly challenging, especially in commercial contracts between sophisticated parties. For example, parties could consider modifying commercial contracts, merger and acquisition agreements, purchase agreements for significant assets, material license agreements, confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements or other material contracts to include provisions that:
While parties should consider including one or more of the restrictions described above in material contracts to help limit the potential costs of eDiscovery in any future litigation, parties should only incorporate these limits after careful consideration for several reasons.First, contractual provisions that are intended to limit eDiscovery obligations are more likely to be enforced if they are tailored to the facts and circumstances of a particular transaction.Second, eDiscovery limitations will only function as intended if adapted to a party's objectives in a particular transaction.Third, before including contractual limits on eDiscovery, a party should consider the implications of the limit. For example, contracting parties cannot eliminate preservation duties owed to third parties or that are imposed by law, regulation or rules of self regulatory organizations. So a producing party must still preserve electronically stored information to the extent that there are extra-contractual preservation duties. For more information about this topic, please contact the authors or any member of the Williams Mullen eDiscovery or Corporate Teams.
With approximately 300 attorneys practicing in over 30 practice areas, Williams Mullen provides comprehensive legal services to regional, national and international clients. Their clients include multinational Fortune 500 companies, private family-owned businesses, nonprofit organizations and government entities. From offices in North Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C. and London, Williams Mullen attorneys bring skills and experience to solving the legal needs of their diverse client base.
Please note: This newsletter contains general, condensed summaries of actual legal matters, statutes and opinions for information purposes. It is not meant to be and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers with particular needs on specific issues should retain the services of competent counsel. For more information, please visit our website at www.williamsmullen.com or contact Bennett B. Borden, 804.420.6563 or firstname.lastname@example.org; Monica McCarroll, 804.420.6444 or email@example.com; or Jay Brudz, 202.293.8137 or firstname.lastname@example.org. For mailing list inquiries or to be removed from this mailing list, please contact Julie Layne at email@example.com or 804.420.6311.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.