The list of judges who are at the forefront of e-discovery case law rolls off the tongues of e-discovery lawyers the way constitutional law professors can spout the intricacies of the Bill of Rights.
Shira A. Scheindlin. Paul W. Grimm. Andrew J. Peck. John M. Facciola. David J. Waxse. Lee H. Rosenthal. These are the names of federal judges hot on the e-discovery circuit, with the bulk serving as magistrate judges.
A number of lawyers have said district court judges don't want to deal with the nitty-gritty of discovery disputes. So those issues are kicked down to the magistrate judges who, many have said, use those disputes to get their names on opinions in a developing, closely watched area of law.
With courts dictating the rules by which attorneys practice their craft, the judiciary plays a very important role in the development of e-discovery, not only from a case law perspective but from how they allow discovery to proceed in their jurisdictions.
The problem is those jurisdictions can vary greatly among the federal circuits as each court interprets the rules its own way. There can also be great disparity between the federal and state courts. With case law slow to develop given many e-discovery issues are not appealed, courts have started to implement procedures for handling e-discovery in their jurisdictions.
Pennsylvania is waiting for the state Supreme Court to approve or reject the proposed changes to e-discovery rules. Many of the state's defense lawyers say the proposed rules, which specifically look to reject many of the federal rules, go in the wrong direction. Plaintiffs lawyers and members of the court don't see it that way.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Gina Passarella
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment