Article by Craig Ball posted on Law.com, May 2, 2007:  “Traditionally, we’ve relied on producing parties to, well, produce. Requesting parties weren’t entitled to rifle file cabinets or search briefcases. When evidence meant paper documents, relying on the other side’s diligence and good faith made sense. Anyone could read paper records, and when paper was ‘deleted,’ it was gone.

But, as paper’s given way to electronically stored information, producing parties lacking computer expertise must blunder through or depend upon experts to access and interpret the evidence. Lawyers get disconnected from the evidence. When discoverable ESI resides in places where the opposition can’t or won’t look, how can we accept a representation that ‘discovery responses are complete’? When there’s a gaping hole in the evidence, sure, you can do discovery about discovery….”

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am and is filed under Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.