In-house counsel weaken argument to reform e-discovery

http://ow.ly/6O2VQ

An article by Mark Diamond appearing on insidecounsel.com.

This article discusses the recent push to try and augment the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the fact that practices used by inside counsel are often more to blame for the costs of eDiscovery, rather than the current rules.

As the author states, "Many of the in-house counsel speakers made some strong arguments that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and current discovery landscape was overly burdensome. Yet their self-described practices for litigation readiness and e-discovery can be described as lacking. However, with a few adjustments to their litigation readiness and records management programs, these in-house counsel might find the rules less onerous."  The writers of this blog fully agree with Mr. Diamond's statement.

The author goes on to state, "I very much agree that the rules surrounding e-discovery need to be reformed, and that the burden these rules place on companies can be very expensive. But in the absence of change, there are many things companies can do to reduce their e-discovery spend just by being smart about the way they approach litigation readiness. Complaining that the rules need to be changed when you’re not really trying makes a weak argument."

The author provides some tips as to how to reduce costs, and increase litigation readiness. The author mentions technology, records management practices and ESI data maps as means that will help inside counsel be better prepared, and lower costs.