eDiscovery Case Law: Connecticut Approves Rules Updates Governing eDiscovery
July 15, 2011
Last year, eDiscovery Daily identified states that have not currently enacted any rules changes for eDiscovery. One of the states that had previously enacted eDiscovery rules changes – Connecticut – has updated their rules as Superior Court judges made several amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book that will affect eDiscovery and other legal practices in Connecticut courts.
A series of amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book, the document that governs all legal practice in the state of Connecticut, was adopted on June 20, 2011. Many of these changes affect eDiscovery practices as itemized below. The majority of the amendments, including those changes involving eDiscovery, are slated to take effect on January 1, 2012.
eDiscovery handling requirements are addressed in Connecticut's existing rules, but the revisions to the Practice Book lay out best practices more completely and explicitly, providing additional instruction for courts, attorneys, and their clients.
The relevant amendments to eDiscovery practices include:
- New Rule 13-5(9): This Rule enables the court to issue a protective order allowing for cost allocation and preventing undue burden on any party in the course of retrieving documents and information for eDiscovery.
- Revisions to Rule 13-9(d): These amendments deal with the format in which electronic documents are produced for the court and for eDiscovery purposes.
- New Rule 13-14(d): This new Rule limits liability in cases where eDiscovery information has been lost or is inaccessible due to understandable flaws in normal routines, or reliance in good faith on systems that failed to back up data. Closely based on Federal Rule 37(f), it deals with accidental data loss in situations where there is a demonstrable absence of intention to destroy or avoid preserving records.
- New Rule 13-33: This new Rule, Claim of Privilege or Protection After Production, defines the procedure by which parties may move to protect information as privileged after it has been produced for pre-trial discovery.
So, what do you think? Do these amendments streamline eDiscovery and make it more practical and enforceable? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.