2015 frcp amendments – one year later

2015FRCPAmendments–OneYearLater

THOMASGRICKS , ESQ. , GRETCHENMOORE, ESQ. , COURTNEY MURPHY, ESQ.

REEDSMITHLLP

JANUARY 17 , 2017

PRESENTERS

§ThomasC.Gricks,III,Esq.– ManagingDirector,ProfessionalServices,Catalyst§GretchenE.Moore,Esq.– Shareholder,StrassburgerMcKennaGutnick&Gefsky§CourtneyA.Murphy,Esq. – E-DiscoveryProjectManager,ClarkHill

AGENDA

§Rule26– ScopeofDiscovery§ SubjectMatterRelevance§ Proportionality§ StateRules

§Rule34– RequestsforProduction

§Rule37(e)– FailuretoPreserve

§FederalRuleofEvidence502

§WesternDistrictofPennsylvaniaLocalRules

THE PRIOR SCOPE OF DISCOVERYRule26.DutytoDisclose;GeneralProvisions;GoverningDiscovery

***(b)DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS.

(1) ScopeinGeneral.Unlessotherwiselimitedbycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefense—includingtheexistence,description,nature,custody,condition,andlocationofanydocumentsorothertangiblethingsandtheidentityandlocationofpersonswhoknowofanydiscoverablematter.Forgoodcause,thecourtmayorderdiscoveryofanymatterrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedintheaction.Relevantinformationneednotbeadmissibleatthetrialifthediscoveryappearsreasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.AlldiscoveryissubjecttothelimitationsimposedbyRule26(b)(2)(C).

***(2)(C) WhenRequired.Onmotionoronitsown,thecourtmustlimitthefrequencyorextentofdiscovery

otherwiseallowedbytheserulesorbylocalruleifitdeterminesthat:

***(iii) theburdenorexpenseoftheproposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit,consideringthe

needsofthecase,theamountincontroversy,theparties’resources,theimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,andtheimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues.



(1) ScopeinGeneral.Unlessotherwiselimitedbycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefense



(1) ScopeinGeneral.Unlessotherwiselimitedbycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefense—includingtheexistence,description,nature,custody,condition,andlocationofanydocumentsor



(1) ScopeinGeneral.Unlessotherwiselimitedbycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefense—includingtheexistence,description,nature,custody,condition,andlocationofanydocumentsorothertangiblethingsandtheidentityandlocationofpersonswhoknowofanydiscoverablematter.




For




Forgoodcause,thecourtmayorderdiscoveryofanymatterrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthe




Forgoodcause,thecourtmayorderdiscoveryofanymatterrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedintheaction.




Relevantinformationneednotbeadmissibleatthetrialifthediscoveryappearsreasonably




Relevantinformationneednotbeadmissibleatthetrialifthediscoveryappearsreasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.




Alldiscoveryissubjecttothelimitations




AlldiscoveryissubjecttothelimitationsimposedbyRule26(b)(2)(C).






***(iii) theburdenorexpenseoftheproposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit,consideringthe

needsofthecase,theamountincontroversy,theparties’resources,theimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,andtheimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues.

THE CURRENT SCOPE OF DISCOVERYRule26.DutytoDisclose;GeneralProvisions;GoverningDiscovery


(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefense



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,theparties’resources,



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,theparties’resources,theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues,



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,theparties’resources,theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues,andwhethertheburdenorexpenseoftheproposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,theparties’resources,theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues,andwhethertheburdenorexpenseoftheproposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.Informationwithinthisscopeneednotbeadmissibleinevidencetobediscoverable.



(1) ScopeinGeneral. Unlessotherwiselimited bycourtorder,thescopeofdiscoveryisasfollows:Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganynon-privilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty’sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase,consideringtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction,theamountincontroversy,theparties’relativeaccesstorelevantinformation,theparties’resources,theimportanceofthediscoveryinresolvingtheissues,andwhethertheburdenorexpenseoftheproposeddiscoveryoutweighsitslikelybenefit.Informationwithinthisscopeneednotbeadmissibleinevidencetobediscoverable.



***(iii) theproposeddiscoveryisoutsidethescopepermittedbyRule26(b)(1).

SUBJECT MATTER RELEVANCE

§ PriorRules– OppenheimerFund,Inc.v.Sanders,437U.S.340(1978)§ FRCP26(b)(1):Partiesmayobtaindiscoveryregardinganymatter,notprivileged,whichisrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthependingaction….

§ Thekeyphraseinthisdefinition– “relevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthependingaction”– hasbeenconstruedbroadlytoencompassanymatterthatbearson,orthatreasonablycouldleadtoothermatterthatcouldbearon,anyissuethatisormaybeinthecase.

§ CurrentRules– Cole’sWexfordHotel,Inc.v.Highmark,Inc.,(WDPa.9/20/16)§ Thetextoftheamendedrulefollowingthe2015amendmentnolongerprovidesthatacourt,basedupongoodcause,mayorderdiscovery‘’ofanymatterrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedintheaction.”

§ TherelianceonOppenheimer…ismisplaced.

§ Contra– Lightsquared,Inc.v.Deere&Co.,(SDNY12/10/15)

§ CitingOppenheimer asdefining“relevant”

PROPORTIONALITY DECISIONSSignificance§ Fultonv.LivingstonFinancialLLC,(WDWash.7/25/16)§ The“inexplicable”useofthepriorrule26(b)warrantedsanctions

§ GileadSciences,Inc.v.Merck&Co,Inc., (NDCa.1/13/16)§ Nolongerisitgoodenoughtohopethattheinformationsoughtmightleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.Infact,theoldlanguagetothateffectisgone.Instead,apartyseekingdiscoveryofrelevant,non-privilegedinformationmustshow,beforeanythingelse,thatthediscoverysoughtisproportionaltotheneedsofthecase.

Burden§ Carrv.StateFarmMutualAutomobileIns.Co.,(NDTex.12/7/15)§ “[T]heamendmentstoRule26(b)andRule26(c)(1)donotalterthebasicallocationoftheburdenonthepartyresistingdiscovery….”

PROPORTIONALITY DECISIONS (CONT.)FactorAnalysis§ FirstNiagaraRiskMgmt.,Inc.v.Folino,(EDPa.8/11/16)§ theCourtcompelledadmittedlybroadrequestsfollowingananalysisofallsixfactors,mostofwhichweighedinfavorofproduction

§Siriano v.GoodmanMfg.Co.,(SDOhio12/9/15)§ factorsweighedinfavorofdiscoverydespitesignificantcost

§InRe:BardIVCFiltersProd.LiabilityLitigation,(DAz.9/16/16)§ burdenofproposeddiscoveryoutweighsmarginalrelevance

Subpoenas§ NobleRomans,Inc.v.Hattehhauer Dist.Co.,(SDInd.3/24/16)§ FRCP26limitationsapplytoRule45subpoenas

PROPORTIONALITY RESOURCES§ TheSedonaConferenceCommentaryonProportionality,TheSedonaConference(January10,2017)(PublicCommentVersion)

§ RevisedGuidelinesandPracticesforImplementingthe2015DiscoveryAmendmentstoAchieveProportionality,DukeLawCenterforJudicialStudies(December20,2016)

§ ProportionalityToday, ThomasY.Allman(August8,2016)

§ APracticalGuidetoAchievingProportionalityUnderNewFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26,Hon.ElizabethD.Laporte andJonathanM.Redgrave,FederalCourtsLawReview,Vol 9,Issue2(2015)

STATE RULES ON PROPORTIONALITY§ June6,2012(EffectiveAugust1,2012):PennsylvaniaSupremeCourt

announcedtheadoptionofnewproceduralrulestoregulatethee-discoveryprocess.OrderNo.564(Pa.2012).

§ DiscoveryofESI shouldbeguidedbyprinciplesofproportionalityandfacilitatedthroughcooperationamongparties.

§ Specificallynotincorporatingthefederalrules(Pennsylvaniaisintheminority).Court’sanalysis:§ Thenatureandscopeofthelitigation,includingtheimportanceandcomplexityoftheissuesandtheamountsatstake.

§ TherelevanceoftheESI anditsimportancetothecourt’sadjudication.§ Thecost,burden,anddelaythatmaybeimposedonthepartiestodealwithESI.§ TheeaseofproducingESI andwhethersubstantiallysimilarinformationisavailablewithlessburden.

§ Anyotherrelevantfactors.CPRC ExplanatoryComments

PROPORTIONALITY IN STATE COURTLattaker v.MageeWomen'sHosp.ofUPMC,No.GD-13-021120,2016Pa.Dist.&Cnty.Dec.LEXIS1144(Pa.C.P.July5,2016)§ UndersettledPennsylvanialaw,discoveryisgovernedby“aproportionality

standardinorderthatdiscoveryobligationsareconsistentwiththejust,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationandresolutionoflitigationdisputes.”

§ ThiscasedoesnotdiscussormentiontheamendedFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(b)(1)nordoesitdiscussproportionality(theonlymentionofitisquotedabove).

PTSI,Inc.v.Haley,71A.3d304(Pa.Super.2013)§ Courtexaminationofamotionforsanctions

RULE 34(B) – PRODUCING DOCUMENTS, ESI…(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons. The responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. The production must then be completed no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.

(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

DISCOVERY REQUESTS MUST BE SPECIFICKissingCamelsSurg.Cen.,LLCetalv.CenturaHealthCorp.,No.12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW(D.Colo.,Jan.22,2016)§ Plaintiffsrespondedtogeneraldiscoveryrequestswithboilerplate

objections§ TheCourtfoundthatthePlaintiffswereinviolationofamendedRule

34(B)(2)(B-C)infailingtoobjecttotherequestswithspecificity:“…Plaintiffsfailtoprovideanyspecificitytotheirobjections,includingtheirobjectionthattheyhavealreadyproducedresponsivedocuments”

§ Additionally,DefendantswerefoundtohaveviolatedRule26(b)(1)forfailingtotailortheirdiscoveryrequeststothecaseinameaningfulway

ScrantonProds.,Inc.v.Bobrick WashroomEquip.,Inc.(M.D.Pa.June3,2016)§ CourtrequiredPlaintifftoprovideamendeddiscoveryresponses…and

disclosewhetherithad“silentlywithheld”documentsintheirentiretybasedonitsobjectionsincludingrelevanceobjections.

§ Boilerplateobjectionswon’tbetolerated

33D

PRE-AMENDMENT RULE 37(e)FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION.Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

RULE 37(e) AS AMENDEDFAILURE TO PRESERVE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATIONIf electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court:

(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may:

(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

RULE 37 IN ACTIONGNNetcom,Inc.v.Plantronics,Inc.(Del.July12,2016)§ DemandletterfromPlaintiff§ Litigationhold§ Quarterlyreminders§ Retentionofback-uptapes(later)§ Afterlawsuitfiled,headofsalesdepartmentissuedemaildeletioninstructions§ Court’sanalysis:

§ Reasonablestepstopreserve§ Bad-faithintenttodeprive§ Prejudicetodefendant§ Sanctions

Anorganization’spreservationefforts“donotabsolveitofallresponsibilityforthefailureofamemberofitsseniormanagementtocomplywithhis…obligations”

FRCPAmendments6

OTHER SANCTIONS DECISIONSNuVasive Inc. v. Madsen Medical, Inc., 2015 WL 4479147 (S.D. Ca. Jan. 26, 2016)§ Motion for adverse inference granted in July 2015 for the loss of text messages § Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate after FRCP amendments went into effect§ Court granted the motion, finding no intent to deprive, as required by the new

37(e)Best Payphones, Inc. v. New York, 2016 WL 792396 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016)§ Reaffirms that remedies under 37(e) are reserved for the loss of ESI§ Court declined to impose sanctions under the theory that the Defendant had failed

to demonstrate prejudice from the loss of the informationShawe v. Elting, 2016 BL 232452 (Del. Ch., 7/20/16)§ Large sanction award - $7.1 million - for deliberate spoliation§ Sophisticated nature of defendant was a factor – CEO of e-discovery company

MOVING FORWARD UNDER AMENDED 37(e)§ Sanctions activity has been reduced but it has not been

eliminated § The amended Rule is not a “get out of jail free” card§ The best defense is a reasonable and comprehensive process

§ Have a plan!§ Consider all potential data sources at the outset of the case§ Document preservation and collection decisions as well as steps

actually taken§ Communicate with/monitor custodians on an ongoing basis§ Preservation has been added as a potential element for Scheduling

Orders under 16(b) and Discovery Orders under 26(f) – take advantage of these options when possible

FRE 502The inclusion of non-waiver orders under FRE 502 is specifically referenced in two FRCP Amendments:§ Rule 16(b) – Scheduling

(3) Contents of the Order.* * * * *

(B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may:* * * * *

(iv) include any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial preparation material after information is produced, including agreements reached under Federal Rule of Evidence 502;

§ Rule 26(f) – Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery* * * * *

(3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties’ views and proposals on:* * * * *

(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including — if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production —whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502;

WD PA LOCAL RULES HAVE BEEN AMENDED

SelectedchangestoLocalFederalDistrictRules§ LCvR 26.2nowincludesthefollowing:[C]Preparationfor

MeetandConfer§ Rule26(f)Reportincludes:

§ ESI DiscoveryPlan§ AgreementonPreservation§ ESI PriortoADR§ EDSM orE-Mediator

§ TheChecklist!§ EducationalGuidelines

FRCPAmendments10

QUESTIONS?

THANKYOU!