Litigation

State E-Discovery Rulemaking after the 2006 Federal Amendments: An Update

By reston, Gates and Ellis

Since the amendment of the Federal Rules in 2006, many states have adopted their own rules to address the discovery of electronically stored information.  Recently, Thomas Allman, a recognized authority on electronic discovery, gave permission to post his article identifying and analyzing the myriad of state e-discovery rules around the country.  Our thanks to Mr. Allman for his analysis, and his gracious permission to post the article here. 

Introduction

Many states have adopted state-wide provisions to address some of the unique procedural issues involved in e-discovery. In addition, a number of 'commercial' or 'business' courts within states, as well as local courts, have adopted specialized rules on the topic.

As of September 2009, twenty-three states have adopted statewide e-discovery procedural rules which mirror or reflect the 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ('2006 Amendments'). In addition, several states have adopted, typically as a separate measure, an analog to the Federal Evidence Rule 502 dealing with waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection.

To read the full article, click here.

TOM ALLMAN, a former Senior V.P. & General Counsel of BASF Corporation, is one of the Editors of the Sedona Principles (2nd Ed. 2007) and currently co-chairs the Steering Committee of the Sedona Conference® Working Group on Electronic Discovery and Document Production ('WG1').  He is also one of the Editors of the PLI Electronic Discovery Deskbook (2009).  He was an early advocate of the need for e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including what became Rule 37(e) (the 'safe harbor' amendment).  He is a graduate of Yale Law School and resides in Cincinnati and New York City.

Full post as published by eDiscovery Law on September 17, 2009 (boomark / email).