Peter S. Vogel, Adjunct
Copyright, Peter S. Vogel, 2012.
Electronic Discovery Reference Model
and Metadata
Richard T. Robinson
Manager of Technology – Practice Support Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
1601 Elm St., Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201
Richard T. Robinson is the Manager of Technology, Practice Support at Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP. He is the founder and current President of the Dallas chapter of the Association of Litigation Support Professionals and is often called upon to consult and advise in matters of complex electronic discovery for the firm.
After earning his undergraduate degree from Georgetown University, Rich Robinson began his legal technology career in 2000 in Boston, Massachusetts. He worked on, and later managed, the helpdesk of a large Boston-based firm before moving into legal applications development. It was here that Mr. Robinson developed an appreciation for the complexities of the legal workflow and how technology could be utilized to increase productivity and efficiency.
Moving to Rhode Island in 2003, Mr. Robinson joined a Providence-based law firm as a Litigation Technology Specialist. He immediately became involved in complex electronic discovery issues when he worked on collecting and analyzing a sql database in the State of Rhode Island vs. Lead Industries Association, et al, a landmark lead litigation public nuisance case that was the longest jury trial in Rhode Island history.
In 2006, Mr. Robinson joined a firm in Austin, TX, as their Director of Litigation Technology where he continued develop his expertise in electronic discovery. Moving to Dallas in 2009, Rich served as the eDiscovery Specialist for Jackson Walker, and as an eDiscovery Consultant for XACT Data Discovery, before finally joined Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP in March of 2011.
Hash Totals
• Math calculation to verify
accuracy of count
• Allows experts to validate
that data is the same
Disk Fragmentation
• Delete v. Undelete
• Copying over all files
• Slack space
(D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically
Stored Information.
The response may state an objection to a
requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the
responding party objects to a requested form—or if no form was
specified in the request—the party must state the form or forms it
intends to use.
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
196.4 Electronic or Magnetic Data.
To obtain discovery of data or information that exists in
electronic or magnetic form, the requesting party must
specifically request production of electronic or magnetic
data and specify the form in which the requesting party
wants it produced.
The responding party must produce
the electronic or magnetic data that is responsive to
the request and is reasonably available to the
responding party in its ordinary course of business.
If
the responding party cannot - through reasonable efforts -
retrieve the data or information requested or produce it in
the form requested, the responding party must state an
objection complying with these rules. If the court orders the
responding party to comply with the request, the court
must also order that the requesting party pay the
reasonable expenses of any extraordinary steps required
to retrieve and produce the information.
196.4 Electronic or Magnetic Data.
To obtain discovery of data or information that exists in
electronic or magnetic form, the requesting party must
specifically request production of electronic or magnetic
data and specify the form in which the requesting party
wants it produced. The responding party must produce the
electronic or magnetic data that is responsive to the
request and is reasonably available to the responding
party in its ordinary course of business.
If the responding
party cannot - through reasonable efforts - retrieve the
data or information requested or produce it in the form
requested, the responding party must state an
objection complying with these rules.
If the court orders
the responding party to comply with the request, the court
must also order that the requesting party pay the
reasonable expenses of any extraordinary steps required
to retrieve and produce the information.
4. Production of All Responsive Documents Generated After February 10, 2003
Impax contends that, except for self-selected discrete categories, Wyeth is refusing to look for or produce documents created or generated after February 10, 2003. Wyeth, in response, contends that documents created after February 10, 2003 are irrelevant and that updating the search would be burdensome and unlikely to produce relevant material. Wyeth also contends that it has offered to update searches in those areas that might possibly have subsequent relevant documents generated after February 2003.
The Court finds that Wyeth's proffered production is reasonable. Wyeth has identified those areas where relevant documents may have been created or
generated after February 2003, and is willing to continue to augment its discovery responses. Since Impax has not demonstrated that the broad search it asks for will generate additional relevant documents, the Court concludes that the
burden of production on Defendant outweighs its likely benefit to Impax. Accordingly, this portion of Impax's Motion is denied.
