Meet and Confer Workshop

725 views

Published on

Three hour Meet and Confer Workshop on October 22, 2008 at ARMA International\'s Conference in Las Vegas.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
725
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Meet and Confer Workshop

    1. 1. ESI Las Vegas: Mock Meet & Confer John Isaza, Esq. Howett Isaza Law Group, LLP John Jablonski, Esq. Goldberg Segalla LLP Education Code: WE1-1406
    2. 2. Learning Objectives <ul><li>Upon completion of this session, participants will be able to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demystify the concept of ”meet and confer” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state equivalent meet and confer requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify a checklist of electronically stored information items expected to be addressed within the first 100 days of a lawsuit </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Program Agenda <ul><li>8:00 to 8:45 The Federal Rules Of Discovery </li></ul><ul><li>8:45 to 9:30 The Audience as Steering Committee – Pre Meet & Confer </li></ul><ul><li>9:30 to 10:00 Break </li></ul><ul><li>10:00 to 11:00 Mock Meet & Confer </li></ul><ul><li>11:00 to 11:30 Q & A </li></ul>
    4. 4. Overview of Meet & Confer Concepts Under Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    5. 5. Part I Early Meet and Confer Rule 26(f), Rule 16(b)
    6. 6. Rule 26(f) <ul><li>Conference of Parties; Planning for Discovery. </li></ul><ul><li>[…] the parties must, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), […], confer to discuss any issues relating to preserving discoverable information, and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties’ views and proposals concerning: </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced. </li></ul><ul><li>(4) Any issues relating to claims of privilege or protection as trial-preparation material, including –if the parties agree on a procedure to assert such claims after production –whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Rule 16(b) <ul><li>Rule 16(b) Pretrial Conference; Scheduling; Management </li></ul><ul><li>[The court’s scheduling order may include:] </li></ul><ul><li>(5) Provisions for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. </li></ul><ul><li>(6) Any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or protection as trial-preparation material after production. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Dual Discovery – Rule 26(a) – Self-Disclosure <ul><li>Rule 26(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. </li></ul><ul><li>Initial disclosures… a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, electronically stored information, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment. </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Dual Discovery – Rule 26(a) <ul><li>In other words: </li></ul><ul><li>Under Rule 26(a), parties are to disclose, without a discovery request per se, and via copy or via a description by category “all documents, [including] electronically stored information” that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Dual Discovery – Rule 26(b) <ul><li>(b) A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify terms and conditions for the discovery. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Dual Approach of Rule 26(b)(2) – In other words: <ul><li>If the information is accessible, information must be produced. </li></ul><ul><li>If the information is not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information from the inaccessible source does not need to be produced, but </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The source that is inaccessible must be identified. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Hypothetical: Aerospace Nevada vs. Belt Sécurité
    13. 13. Hypothetical <ul><li>Aerospace Nevada is a company, based out of Reno, Nevada that builds private jets </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é is a seatbelt manufacturing company, based out of Paris, France, with substantial operations in the United States </li></ul><ul><li>In the past few months, Aerospace Nevada learned that Belt S é curit é’s seat belts are defective and do not meet Aerospace Nevada’s specs nor applicable international standards </li></ul><ul><li>Aerospace Nevada has sued Belt S é curit é for breach of contract </li></ul>
    14. 14. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Well before the lawsuit was filed on July 20, 2008, a low level employee at Belt S é curit é told people (his friends) from Aerospace Nevada at an ARMA International conference last year that he thought his company was going to sue their company based on problems with the seatbelts </li></ul><ul><li>One of those friends was a senior management level employee at Aerospace Nevada </li></ul>
    15. 15. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Complaint was served on September 20, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é answered the complaint on October 20, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>The answer denies all allegations </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é ’s answer includes a cross-complaint against Aerospace Nevada for fraudulent inducement of contract </li></ul><ul><li>Aerospace Nevada did not reveal at contract formation that Aerospace Nevada was contemplating bankruptcy </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é asserts that Aerospace Nevada is using this lawsuit as an excuse not to pay for Belt S é curit é ’s products </li></ul>
    16. 16. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Now that all the parties have appeared in the case, the parties must meet and confer in preparation for the Scheduling Conference before the case Magistrate, which is scheduled to take place within the next 30 days </li></ul>
    17. 17. About Aerospace Nevada <ul><li>It has taken steps over the last several years towards becoming paperless </li></ul><ul><li>It has invested in very sophisticated electronic content management systems, and by extension have developed sophisticated policies and procedures to manage the systems and all electronic data </li></ul><ul><li>The company has gone through great efforts to image as many paper records as possible </li></ul>
    18. 18. Aerospace Nevada Handouts <ul><li>Organization chart </li></ul><ul><li>System architecture/map </li></ul><ul><li>Data source checklist </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed key search terms </li></ul><ul><li>Legal Hold policy </li></ul><ul><li>Records Retention Policy </li></ul><ul><li>List of Backup Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>List of Legacy Systems with recovery cost estimates </li></ul>
    19. 19. Aerospace Nevada’s Discovery Challenges <ul><li>Bankruptcy discussions and financial records are confidential and irrelevant </li></ul><ul><li>Countless records exist in legacy systems and back-up tapes that pre-date the ECM </li></ul>
    20. 20. About Belt S é curit é <ul><li>Belt S é curit é has been running on a shoestring budget, given substantial legal fees incurred in defending similar breach of contract actions </li></ul><ul><li>Although by its very nature its records are primarily electronic, all data is stored in servers located in France, a country notorious for very strict privacy and electronic record regulations </li></ul><ul><li>There are very little policies and procedures to manage the data </li></ul><ul><li>They also have a substantial amount of paper records, which are stored in France </li></ul>
    21. 21. Belt S é curit é Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives </li></ul><ul><li>List of employees who work from home </li></ul><ul><li>List of storage facilities </li></ul><ul><li>French laws re: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>and electronic records </li></ul>
    22. 22. Belt S é curit é ’s Discovery Challenges <ul><li>French laws forbid production of certain records </li></ul><ul><li>There are paper records in various storage facilities </li></ul><ul><li>The vast majority of all electronic records are sitting on employee c-drives, with over 50,000 employees </li></ul>
    23. 23. Aerospace Nevada Handouts <ul><li>Organization chart </li></ul><ul><li>System architecture/map </li></ul><ul><li>Data source checklist </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed key search terms </li></ul><ul><li>Legal Hold policy </li></ul><ul><li>Records Retention Policy </li></ul><ul><li>List of Backup Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>List of Legacy Systems with recovery cost estimates </li></ul>
    24. 26. Data source checklist
    25. 27. Data Source Checklist <ul><li>RM System, which captures email </li></ul><ul><li>ECM System </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Back-up Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>What else does audience recommend? </li></ul>
    26. 28. Proposed key search terms
    27. 29. Proposed Search Terms <ul><li>Belt Securite </li></ul><ul><li>Seatbelts </li></ul><ul><li>Contract </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>What else does audience recommend? </li></ul>
    28. 30. Legal Hold policy
    29. 31. Records Retention Policy
    30. 32. Electronic Records Policy
    31. 33. Records Retention Schedule
    32. 34. List of Backup Tapes
    33. 35. List of Legacy Systems with recovery cost estimates
    34. 36. Aerospace Nevada’s Discovery Wish List <ul><li>Back-up tapes </li></ul><ul><li>Policies and procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Emails </li></ul><ul><li>Design and as-built plans </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance and customer service databases </li></ul><ul><li>List of Third Party consultants </li></ul>
    35. 37. Belt S é curit é Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives </li></ul><ul><li>List of employees who work from home </li></ul><ul><li>List of storage facilities </li></ul><ul><li>French laws re: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>and electronic records </li></ul>
    36. 39. List of backup tapes by date range
    37. 40. List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives
    38. 41. List of employees who work from home
    39. 42. List of storage facilities
    40. 43. French laws re: privacy <ul><li>In pursuance of the 1970 Hague Convention, any information injunction issued by US judiciary or administrative authorities, must be subject to a request for international judicial cooperation filed with the relevant department at the Ministry of Justice. After investigation, the request may be either rejected or transferred to the jurisdiction having geographic competence over its enforcement. </li></ul>
    41. 44. French laws re: privacy <ul><li>The French Law of 26 July 1968 on the disclosure of documents and information of an economic nature prohibits, unless otherwise provided under international covenants, any person from requesting or disclosing any documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature likely to be used to compile evidence intended for use in legal or administrative proceedings or arising from them. Hence, such requests from foreign administrative authorities may be legally allowed only if covered under an international agreement or treaty. </li></ul>
    42. 45. Belt Securite’s Discovery Wish List <ul><li>Aerospace Nevada’s bankruptcy documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Emails </li></ul><ul><li>Back-up tapes </li></ul><ul><li>Policies & Procedures </li></ul><ul><li>All electronic and paper calendars of top officers at Aerospace Nevada, including that of its General Counsel </li></ul><ul><li>All text messages </li></ul>
    43. 46. Meet & Confer Discussion Items <ul><ul><li>Information that will be sought. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information systems and architecture. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Steps taken and to be taken to preserve information. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any burden (cost) shifting arrangements. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Records management policies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Form in which information is to be produced. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation of privilege. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to deal with French laws. </li></ul></ul>
    44. 47. The Meet & Confer <ul><li>Demonstration to Follow </li></ul><ul><li>The attorneys will meet to conduct the formal meet and confer </li></ul><ul><li>LET THE SPARKS FLY! </li></ul>
    45. 48. Audience Questions or Comments
    46. 49. <ul><li>John J. Isaza, Esq. </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>(949) 632-3860 </li></ul><ul><li>19742 MacArthur Blvd, </li></ul><ul><li>Suite 250 </li></ul><ul><li>Irvine, CA 92612 </li></ul>ESI Las Vegas: Mock Meet & Confer John Jablonski, Esq. [email_address] (716)566-5469 665 Main Street Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14203 Please Complete Your Session Evaluation Education Code: WE1-1406

    ×