De Centralization Of Electronic Discovery

2380 Words10 Pages
De-centralization of electronic discovery Eric W. Landry
American Public University
Dr. Deborah Moerland
August 2, 2014 Abstract
In 1995 and 1996 the judicial systems around the world realized that there was a problem with computer-based discovery and enacted civil procedures and guidance to assist legal entities. Summarizing Michael Curran, Esq. (2011) even with these civil procedures, guidance and laws in place, there are still several challenges in the legal systems when it comes to discovery of Electronically Stored Information when dealing with international e-discovery (Curran, 2011). This information may be protected under different data protection laws that can inhibit the e-discovery process during litigation, civil, and
…show more content…
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5
IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 5
V. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5
VI. LIMITATIONS 6
II LITERATURE REVIEW 6
I. INTRODUCTION 6
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 6
III. LAW AND REGULATION ANALYSIS 7
I. SUMMARY 9
II. E-DISCOVERY TOOL ANALYSIS 10
III. SUMMARY 10
IV. CONCLUSION 10
III METHODOLOGY 11
IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 11
I. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND RESULTS 11
II. CONCLUSION 11
III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW RESEARCH 11

I Introduction
The de-centralization of electronic discovery (e-discovery) rules (laws) brings challenges when searching for evidence in Electronically Stored Information (ESI), both nationally and internationally. If a litigation case covers more than one jurisdiction a lawyer will need to be hired that knows each particular jurisdiction. The reason that a lawyer familiar with that particular United States (US) district court, from herein referred to as districts; will need to be hired, is due to the differences in the local rules throughout the districts. To summarize David Canfield (2012), several states have adopted new civil procedures since the 2006 Amendments that may be incorporated in the Federal rules for future amendments (Canfield, 2012, p.p. 1-2). “District judges play an active role in tailoring e-discovery needs to individual cases” (Allman, T., 2013) and the local adoption of federal rules cause inconsistent rules throughout the country is the cause of these differences” (Allman, T., 2013). Regulations that
Get Access