Select Page

BLS Discovery Pilot Project to Take on Electronic Discovery

Guest post by Gesmer Updegrove attorney Nancy Cremins.

______________________________

On December 1, 2009, the Massachusetts Superior Court announced the implementation of a Discovery Pilot Project in the Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session (BLS). A link to the press release announcement is here, and the text of the Project here.

The BLS Discovery Pilot Project will be implemented on January 4, 2010 and was developed as the result of a joint effort of the BLS judges and the BLS Advisory Committee, in an effort to address the increasing burden and cost of civil pretrial discovery, particularly electronic discovery.

The BLS Pilot Project incorporates some of the principles set forth in the March 2009 Final Report of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and the Institute for Advancement of the American Legal System, which (no surprise) found the civil justice system “in serious need of repair.”

The guiding principal of the BLS Pilot Project is to tie the scope of discovery to the magnitude of the claims at issue. The BLS judges will work with the parties to determine the scope and timing of permitted pre-trial discovery, taking into consideration the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ respective resources, and the complexity and importance of the issues at stake.

In a move similar to the “automatic disclosure” that has been in effect in the federal court system for many years, each party participating in the BLS Pilot Project will be expected to produce at the outset of the case “all reasonable available non-privileged, non-work product documents and things that may be used to support that party’s claims, counterclaims or defenses.” After the initial production, the parties and the BLS judges will consider other pre-trial discovery methods, including numerical and time limitations and limiting the persons from whom discovery may be sought.

With respect to electronic discovery, the scope of such discovery will be governed by “the nature and scope of the case, relevance, importance to the court’s adjudication, expenses and burdens.” If the parties are unable to agree, the BLS judges will conduct an electronic discovery hearing, to address the scope of allowable proportional electronic discovery and allocation of its cost.

Chief Justice Rouse states that the Pilot Project will be in effect initially from January through December of 2010. Participants in the BLS Pilot Project will be asked to provide feedback so that data may be gathered and analyzed. Chief Justice Rouse states that the Pilot Project’s efficacy will then be evaluated and refined for future use.

Whether the BLS Pilot Project will have the desired affect of streamlining and reducing costs associated with the discovery process is yet to be determined, but kudos to the Massachusetts Superior Court and the BLS for at least making an attempt to fix the burdensome and expensive discovery process which, in its current state, often makes resolving a case on the merits cost prohibitive.

File Under: Strange Communications I Have Received (Are There Really Lawyers Stupid Enough to Fall for This?)

I’ve been getting emails like the one below for months.  Maybe if I get one from a prospective client in Nigeria I’ll head over for a visit …..

Dear Desired Lawyer/Lawfirm,

Greetings to you from Nippon Steel Corporation

With all due respect, please kindly confirm the receipt of this mail  if you are in a position to represent on our company in matters of  delinquent accounts.

We contact you to represent our company after a careful review of your profile. We are of the opinion that you represent us in the United States of America  in order for us to recover monies due to our  organization by our American clients.

In order to achieve these objectives a good and reputable lawyer or law firm will be required to handle this service. Please advice once  you take in this issue.

P.S. If you are not in the position to represent us we would be very glad if you could refer us to any law firm in North America or Canada  that could.

Once more thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this mail.

Your truly,
Akio Mimura
Director and Chairman
Nippon Steel Corporation
6-3, Otemachi 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 100-8071, Japan.
Email: amimura@discuz.org

Spoilation = Destruction of Evidence = Dismissal + Sanctions

Here is a link to Judge Judith Fabricant’s recent decision in Stein v. Clinical Data (reported on the front page of the November 30, 2009 Mass Lawyer’s Weekly), where she found that the plaintiff had destroyed evidence.  Judge Fabricant sanctioned the plaintiff in this case by dismissing his case and ordering him to pay almost a quarter of a million dollars in attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant.  These cases are relatively rare (since the party who destroys evidence rarely is caught), but the consequences to the party who engages in this kind of conduct can be devastating.

Stein v. Clinical Data (SpoilatIon)