Exterro's E-Discovery Breakdown

The world of E-Discovery is constantly changing – let us break it down for you with a weekly dose of News, Resources, Case Law, and Humor, all written in a concise and easy to understand format.


3 Ways to Optimize Your E-Discovery Practices Straight from the FRCP (and FRE)

Created on February 23, 2018

Content Marketing Manager at Exterro

The third part of our 2018 Federal Judges Survey, “Do the Right Thing” – Judicial Perspectives on the Rules of E-Discovery, we asked federal judges to offer some opinions on the rules that govern e-discovery: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Federal Rules of Evidence.

The judges overwhelmingly agree with the statement, “the new FRCP e-discovery rules have helped solve many problems that occur in e-discovery today.” 73% agreed and only 8% disagreed. But despite the fact that the most recent FRCP amendments are over two years old, the judges feel like attorneys have not adjusted their mindsets—or their practices—to take full advantage of the Rules.

Here are three observations and opinions from federal judges on ways you can improve your e-discovery practices just by making better use of the Rules.

  1. Cooperate more.

  2. Despite the Rules’ increased emphasis on cooperation, the judges haven’t seen it. Hon. Xavier Rodriguez US District Judge (W.D. Texas) states, “For the most part, except for minor issues, the emphasis on cooperation has not really achieved the desired results.” 

  3. Prepare earlier.

  4. Changes to pre-trial deadlines for Rule 16 hearings and 26(f) meet and confers shouldn’t be seen as a burden. They’re an opportunity to resolve cases sooner, or at least at less expense, through informed exchange of information about discovery issues. Judge Rodriguez continues, in his expert opinion, to explain, "Without doing this preparatory work, meet and confer sessions and Rule 16 hearings will bear very little fruit."

  5. Take advantage of FRE 502(d).
  6. Fully 37.5% of the judges surveyed feel that failure to enter into 502(d) orders rises to the level of malpractice. (And it's not like the "No's" and "Don't Know's" are endorsing  As Irth Solutions v. Windstream Communications (S.D. Ohio August 2, 2017) demonstrated, there are limits to the benefits of clawback agreements.

    If you'd like to receive more case law news from Exterro, sign up for our case law newsletter by visiting our email preference center today.