Electronically Stored Information and E-discovery in federal courts.

We are heavily committed to conducting discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in federal court cases.  Our office has the experience and investment – both legal and technological – to assist our clients in this fascinating and quickly developing area of the law.  We strongly believe this is the right choice for our law office and our clients because:

a.       ESI and electronic discovery are fast becoming the norm in large civil cases, and will become the norm in almost every single civil case in the near future.

b.      Almost everyone uses a computer at work and at home. More than ninety-five percent of all documents and information now originate as electronic documents. 

c.       Among other things, ESI includes e-mail, web pages, word-processing files, and electronic data stored on magnetic disks, optical drives, and flash memory. ESI is dynamic and may be easily changed or altered.

d.      ESI contains information that is not available in paper documents, such as metadata, background notes or comments, and spreadsheet formulas.  As a general rule, one should request a full electronic version of documents and emails rather than paper.  Be aware, however, that the volume of ESI is usually exponentially greater than paper documents because ESI is stored in multiple versions in multiple locations on multiple devices.

e.       All too often, businesses have abandoned sound document retention and management plans in a rush to automate their companies.  Data is often stored on massive networks, local hard drives, and portable storage devices.   

f.       The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in December 2006 to reflect the unique problems and issues that arise in connection with discovery of ESI.

g.      Many of the problems which have arisen in conducting electronic discovery have been related to attorneys’ failure to understand their own clients’ computer systems, document retention and destruction policies, capabilities, and limitations.  See, e.g., Linnen v. A.H. Robins Co., 1999 WL 462015 (Mass. Super Ct. June 16, 1999).