For example, the Western District of Washington has published an ESI agreement model that requires proportionate and cooperative discovery. See W.D. Wash. [Model] Agreement regarding Discovery of Elec. Stored Info. [Proposed] Order (2015). This model agreement requires the parties to exchange the names of the five custodians most likely to have an edible ESI. In addition, it states that parties are not required to change the security and archiving procedures for the data they have used in the normal course of their business and that they are not required to retain data such as server, system or network protocols, or deleted, glazed, fragmented or other data, which can only be accessed by medico-loguering means. If search terms are used, says the standard agreement, an applicant party is allowed not to add more than five additional terms or queries without showing a good thing, and „targeted terms and queries instead of over-broad[,]… must be put in place. Ideally, a meeting and conference should clarify and focus issues between the parties, eliminate tangential disagreements and avoid unnecessary movement practices.
In the midst of a fiery discovery struggle, however, lawyers sometimes forget how much the courts in general hate discovery requests, especially when a court suspects that a request with a healthy discussion between lawyers could have been avoided. If you want to be one of the parties in the cases described below, you need to help yourself decide which ESI points you want to compromise in your next case and when you need to submit a problem to the judge. The Eastern District of Texas has a useful model specific to ESI specific to patent litigation. See E.D. Tex. [Model] Order regarding E-discovery in Patent Cases (2014). This order limits the applicant part to eight e-mail administrators. Id. at 4.
The order of models also limits the number of search terms per administrator to 10. Id. While the agreement of the parties may alter these model conditions, the approval of this more limited discovery by the District Court provides leverage for parties seeking reasonable detection limits. Best Practices for Electronic Discovery of Documentary Materials in Criminal Cases Eastern District of New York Local Rule 26.3 Uniform Definitions in Discovery Requests The Northern District of California has also published Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. These guidelines also promote „the adequacy and proportionality of discovery.” See N.D. Cal. Guidelines for the Discovery of Elec. Stored Info. 1.03 (2012).
The Northern District also provides practitioners with a checklist for ESI discussions during the meeting and interview, which requires a debate on proportionality and costs. See N.D. Cal ESI Checklist IV. . Middle District of Pennsylvania Rules of Court 26.1 Obligation to Investigate and Disclosure of Schedule A Joint Case Management Plan General Order No.