New York Law Journal
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Practice Areas
  • My NYLJ
  • Careers
  • Courts
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Smart Litigator

Home > Proposal Would Expand Rule on Commercial e-Discovery

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Proposal Would Expand Rule on Commercial e-Discovery

By Brendan Pierson Contact All Articles 

New York Law Journal

January 8, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 

The Office of Court Administration yesterday sought public comment on a proposal to expand the rule for addressing e-discovery issues in Commercial Division cases, and to extend that rule to cases where e-discovery is likely in all of the state's trial courts. The proposal is posted at Court Notes.

Section 202.70 Rule 8 of the courts' Uniform Rules already requires that in Commercial Division cases parties consult with each other at the beginning of a case about the e-discovery issues they anticipate. The new proposal would add language detailing what kind of e-discovery issues should be discussed. The issues include identifying potentially relevant categories of data; identifying the relevant computer servers; implementing measures to preserve relevant information; agreeing to a "claw back" procedure for parties to recall any privileged information that they provide by accident; and estimating the cost of e-discovery and agreeing on the initial allocation of that cost.

The proposal would also implement §§202.12(b) and 202.12(c)(3) of the Uniform Rules to require parties in all New York trial courts to consult with each other at the beginning of the case that is likely to include e-discovery. The proposed amendment lays out guidelines for deciding whether a case is likely to involve e-discovery, including whether relevant electronically stored records exist, whether the parties intend to use it and whether the cost of e-discovery is proportionate to the amount in controversy.

The proposed amendment to §202.12 also includes language similar to the proposed amendment to §202.70 about what kinds of issues parties should discuss. The proposal originated with the E-Discovery Working Group, a group of attorneys tasked with producing recommendations on e-discovery issues in the state.



Subscribe to New York Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Proposal

    January 09, 2013 05:27 PM

    Here it is

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Court Notes
  • E-Discovery Working Group

Key categories

    
  • E-discovery

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Stop-and-Frisk Judge Relishes Her Independence
    •      
  2. Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices
    •      
  3. City Defends Heavy Use of Stop-and-Frisk by Police Dept.
    •      
  4. Ground Is Shifting in 14-Year Litigation
    •      
  5. Trial Founders on 'Personality Issues' Between Judge, Counsel
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers

Ropers Majeski Tries to Re-Invent Itself
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Not Covered for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Firm Takes Another Hit in Bid for 'Unconscionable' Fees

New York's Martin Act Faces Test in Challenge to 2005 Case

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Follow That Escapee!'

Judge Who Tossed Defense Counsel Accused of 'Partiality'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About NYLJ   |
  • Contact NYLJ   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media