Three recent cases help shape how lawyers conduct and pay for e-discovery.
By Alex Vorro
this ever-evolving technological age, lawyers just cannot escape e-discovery.
It’s begun to take center stage in litigation, with pitched battles over production
formats, search terms, review technologies and—perhaps even more importantly—how much it will cost and who foots the bill. And what’s worse, these
wars are waged with such vehemence and vitriol that they often overshadow
the very reasons the two parties are in court to begin with.
A few common themes are present in many of the recent e-discovery-centric cases that have
come down the pike. As seen recently in Monique Da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe & MSL
Group (see “Peck’s Position,” May 2012), the issue of working with opposing counsel to develop a
sound discovery protocol, agreed to in advance, regardless of the technology-assisted review tool
is critical. Equally important in recent cases is the matter of proportionality and ensuring that the
parties’ requests, and the corresponding costs, are proportional to the underlying litigation.
What follows is an analysis of three lawsuits—one currently awaiting a ruling and two recently
decided—that are helping to shape this incredibly divisive e-discovery landscape.
illustration by tim paul