OBJECTIONS WHEN AND HOW RAISED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN A SPECIFIC FORMAT
The format of discoverable material holds relevance when it is electronically stored information (ESI). The treatment of metadata is of basic concern. Metadata is described as “information that provides information about other data”. It describes things like the source of the information – who, when and how it was created, modifications to the information if any, etc. It may contain information that is visible to any viewer and also may contain any hidden information. At times, metadata may contain information that is privileged. In cases involving many parties, more money, voluminous data, it may be critical to prove an allegation or defense or to prove that the information has been spoliated. This can be effectuated through unchanged metadata. Materials provided in native-format also assist in this endeavor. Native format allows electronic evidence to be preserved without degradation.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require the discoverable Document review company to be produced to the other party in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained by the producing party (“native format”) or in a usable form. To produce ESI in native format is to produce the information in the same electronic format in which it existed with the producing party.
Please refer the fig. herein provided for an overview of the discovery process.
Production of Electronically Stored Information
If the litigating parties fail to mutually determine the format for production then, Rule 34(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure assists in the same. It states that unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, the parties must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request. It further requires the parties to produce documents in the abovestated form if the request does not specify a form for producing ESI.
Further Rule 34(b)(2)(B)-(D) specifies that if any responding party objects to the ESI format requested, it is required to state an alternative format it intends to use. The Rule requires that if a responding party intends to object to the requests it must state its objections with specificity and the reasons for such objection. If, after the producing party has raised an objection to the format of ESI and the demanding party is not satisfied with the alternative ESI format suggested by the producing party, the parties must meet and confer under Rule 37(a)(2)(B) to try to resolve the matter before the demanding party files a motion to compel.
The Eastern District Of California in Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education illustrated that a party may waive its objections if it fails to timely and clearly object to a party’s demand that ESI be produced in a particular format.. Herein, the producing party objected to the party’s every request specifically but failed to object the part of the request which required it to produce the ESI in native format. The requesting party moved for motion to compel. The court granted the motion and ordered that the producing party produce all the 29,000 documents it produced in load format, again in native format.
It is therefore prudent and judicious to raise objections regarding requests of particular format of ESI clearly, with specificity and within the timeframe set forth in Rule 34(b)(2)(A) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure.
The process of e-discovery is complex and has many facets attached to it. Today market provides companies dedicated to document review services. We at SKJ Juris, a document review services company, can lessen your burden to allow you to concentrate on other nuances of the process. We can assist you in document review, a phase in the e-discovery process. Our expert team delivers swiftly and within the time constraints set by the client, with accuracy. That phase of document review in the ediscovery process can be dealt with by our team while you may engross yourself in other intricacies of the process.
SKJ Juris through its work product is establishing itself in the market of document review service providers as one among the best. Technology, though eases much of burden, but a human touch is something which cannot be denied. The document review services provided at SKJ are unmatched. SKJ with its experienced team provides you withimmaculate results in document review services. Approach us and we will assist you as per your requirements, providing immaculate document review services.
Lease Abstraction Company
Lease Abstraction Company is a company that specializes in summarizing leases into different fields which are critical for the party to the lease to efficiently managetheir leases. SKJ Juris is a lease abstraction company that offers lease abstraction services as per the clients’ requirement. SKJ Juris is a lease abstraction company that can provide its lease abstraction services in any tool/ solution which is user-friendly to its clients. In case there is no tool/ solution, SKJ Juris can offer tools/ solutions of its affiliate companies or can even work in a spreadsheet, if required.
Innovation Revolution in the Law firm model
The traditional law firm model is undergoing gradual transformation. The legal tasks performed by large law firms are now being performed by lower-cost provider’s overseas i.e. Legal Process Outsourcing companies. More than 80% of the large law firms are planning to maintain or increase their number of contract lawyers and paralegals who in many cases will do work that associates used to do.
It is apparent that there is a structural shift in cozy law firm model. This shift can be rightly stated as the innovation revolution. The Clients have reduced their reliance on traditional law firms. Clients “disaggregate” their legal work and assign the tasks to the most efficient and cost-effective provider outside the traditional firm setting. Some of the alternatives available to the clients are offshoring the legal work to Legal process outsourcing providers who provide services at low rates and perform those tasks that traditionally was performed by entry- level associate’s at large U.S. law firms. The competent lawyers in India are contributing to a great extent to the law firms in the US and EU. In-shoring is opted for mid-level work which requires the knowledge and skill of qualified attorneys within the jurisdiction and time zone of the client.
Legal Process Outsourcing can prove to be the best alternative where the clients seek stringent costs controls and maintaining a full-time associate for the work becomes pricey. These legal tasks can be outsourced to paralegals that provide their services in a time-saving and cost-effective manner. In-housing is useful to perform high-end, sophisticated work involving areas of core risk which demand the abilities and skills of an expert. Such high- end work is performed by experts in-house and is not outsourced to other service provider.
The technological advancement also plays a vital role in the innovation revolution. The communication and productivity enhancing tools have aided the legal team to perform tasks without being concerned about any geographical boundaries. The legal work is performed in accordance with the client requirement and cost-effective basis. Many tools viz., Practical Law, CEB, are of great significance to the in-house attorneys for the purpose of legal templates, memos, research etc. The case management software and various tools for contract management and e-discovery are essential for performing legal tasks efficiently and speedily.
The e-billing software and online bidding platforms prove beneficial for the clients and aid them in securing the best amongst all deals available.
The changing trends in the traditional law firms are useful for clients in terms of cost and process. However, such trends pose a threat to the traditional law firm model. The large law firms diverting the work to legal process outsourcing providers for time and cost-efficiency will benefit by delivering the work timely and at economical rates to the client.
OBJECTIONS WHEN AND HOW RAISED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN A SPECIFIC FORMAT
The format of discoverable material holds relevance when it is electronically stored information (ESI). The treatment of metadata is of basic concern. Metadata is described as “information that provides information about other data”. It describes things like the source of the information – who, when and how it was created, modifications to the information if any, etc. It may contain information that is visible to any viewer and also may contain any hidden information. At times, metadata may contain information that is privileged. In cases involving many parties, more money, voluminous data, it may be critical to prove an allegation or defense or to prove that the information has been spoliated. This can be effectuated through unchanged metadata. Materials provided in native-format also assist in this endeavor. Native format allows electronic evidence to be preserved without degradation.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require the discoverable Document review company to be produced to the other party in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained by the producing party (“native format”) or in a usable form. To produce ESI in native format is to produce the information in the same electronic format in which it existed with the producing party.Please refer the fig. herein provided for an overview of the discovery process.
Production of Electronically Stored Information
If the litigating parties fail to mutually determine the format for production then, Rule 34(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure assists in the same. It states that unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, the parties must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request. It further requires the parties to produce documents in the abovestated form if the request does not specify a form for producing ESI.
Further Rule 34(b)(2)(B)-(D) specifies that if any responding party objects to the ESI format requested, it is required to state an alternative format it intends to use. The Rule requires that if a responding party intends to object to the requests it must state its objections with specificity and the reasons for such objection. If, after the producing party has raised an objection to the format of ESI and the demanding party is not satisfied with the alternative ESI format suggested by the producing party, the parties must meet and confer under Rule 37(a)(2)(B) to try to resolve the matter before the demanding party files a motion to compel.
The Eastern District Of California in Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education illustrated that a party may waive its objections if it fails to timely and clearly object to a party’s demand that ESI be produced in a particular format.. Herein, the producing party objected to the party’s every request specifically but failed to object the part of the request which required it to produce the ESI in native format. The requesting party moved for motion to compel. The court granted the motion and ordered that the producing party produce all the 29,000 documents it produced in load format, again in native format.
It is therefore prudent and judicious to raise objections regarding requests of particular format of ESI clearly, with specificity and within the timeframe set forth in Rule 34(b)(2)(A) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure.
The process of e-discovery is complex and has many facets attached to it. Today market provides companies dedicated to document review services. We at SKJ Juris, a document review services company, can lessen your burden to allow you to concentrate on other nuances of the process. We can assist you in document review, a phase in the e-discovery process. Our expert team delivers swiftly and within the time constraints set by the client, with accuracy. That phase of document review in the ediscovery process can be dealt with by our team while you may engross yourself in other intricacies of the process.
SKJ Juris through its work product is establishing itself in the market of document review service providers as one among the best. Technology, though eases much of burden, but a human touch is something which cannot be denied. The document review services provided at SKJ are unmatched. SKJ with its experienced team provides you withimmaculate results in document review services. Approach us and we will assist you as per your requirements, providing immaculate document review services.
