Calif. Judge Spreads Federal Circuit's Gospel: Less Is More

http://ow.ly/7uP8Q

An article by Ginny LaRoe posted on law.com on the LTN webpage.

This article discusses the recent push to limit eDiscovery in patent litigation.  The articles states, "Randall Rader announced a novel advisory order that calls for strict limits on electronic discovery in patent suits, which can cost accused infringers dearly even on bogus claims." A link to the sample advisory order is included in the article.

The article further states, "With the ink on the advisory order barely dry, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order curtailing email production in a patent infringement suit pending in his San Jose courtroom, becoming one of the first judges in the country to buy into Rader's vision.

The move caused a buzz among patent litigators waiting to see if the approach will rein in e-discovery costs, or prove unworkable and even lead to more venue shopping."

The article states, "Grewal's order comes in DCG v. Checkpoint Technologies, 11-03792, a suit involving patents that relate to optical inspection of computer chips.

Over plaintiff objections, Grewal relied on Rader's approach of breaking up discovery into phases, starting with both sides exchanging "core documentation," then later moving on to email discovery. For email, production must focus on "particular issues." The number of search terms and custodians of records are limited to five, unless both sides come to an agreement on more.

And the kicker: If one side wants more emails produced, it will foot the bill." A link to the opinion from the case is provided in the article.

The article further states, "Rader often cites statistics that a tiny fraction of emails produced actually makes its way into trial exhibits.

But that statistic, says Jesse Geraci, an IP litigator at Durie Tangri, ignores a fruitful area of email discovery: attachments.

"That's been overlooked a lot in this debate," says Geraci, who's often on the defense side. Rader "doesn't really have a perspective on how many of the documents he's looking at may have been obtained through email.""

There article also provides discussion regarding varied opinions on this issue, as there are costs and benefits associated with this approach that still need to be analyzed over time.