E-Discovery – More than Just Buzz Words

30 September 2008 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

In December 2006 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure changed the manner in which lawyers had to deal with ESI (Electronically Stored Information – a new acronym from the Federal Rules). Having worked with computers since 1967 this was hardly a news flash since ESI has been part of my 30 years of litigating disputes about failed computer system implementations, software copyright infringement, and software trade secret misappropriation. But most lawyers and judges are still trying to understand IT lingo let alone what IT does.

Buzz Words Abound

Notwithstanding that every vocation has its own buzz-words and lingo, IT and law unrelated, logically or any other way. There have been a number of court rulings that adversely impact parties who destroy ESI that should have been saved, so it has become incumbent for lawyers to learn more about IT. Ironically in order to be successful as a lawyer one must be a good communicator, whether in writing and/or speech, but few lawyers have figured about that they need to change their orientation and learn how IT operates, not just learn some buzz words. This is not about buzz words, rather lawyers need to learn about the tools that they are totally dependent upon. Although I have driven automobiles my entire life, I could not repair an engine to save my life, but I have learned enough to intelligently operated and deal with problems as they arise.

Judges Don’t Get IT Either

Not much of a shock, but since judges are lawyers, and lawyers do not have IT training it is should not be a shock that most judges do not understand IT. So in today’s hurly burly litigation it becomes the job of lawyers to educate judges regarding the ESI in their cases or risk being penalized. As I have pointed out in other blogs, papers, and speeches, one way to help bridge this gap is to use a Special Master. Having served as a Special Master in federal and state cases for +20 years it seems to me that once the parties and judges have a better understanding of IT, ESI issues in dispute have a way getting less complicated.

IT Gurus May Not Know the Law 

Once upon at time I read a 110 page opinion interpreting an aspect of how the Copyright Act affected a software dispute, and it seems to make little sense to me. However as one can image it is unlikely that an appellate court would challenge a trial judge’s 110 page opinion, so that 110 page opinion became the federal law relating to that aspect of software Copyrights. A few years later I took the deposition of the computer scientist who served as the Special Master for the judge who wrote the 110 page opinion in another software Copyright case. Although the computer scientist had a Ph.D. from a top university and was a well-respected professor, during his deposition he admitted that he had never ever read the Copyright Act, nor had he ever read any legal opinions in other cases, nor had he studied law. No wonder the 110 page opinion made no sense. So it seems that even judges need to understand the limits on Special Masters and learn about IT themselves.
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services