This document discusses e-discovery in UK litigation and compares it to procedures in Japan. Key points: - UK litigation requires full disclosure of all material evidence by both parties. This contrasts with Japan which does not have an automatic discovery process. - Differences in civil procedure laws around document protection and data privacy can cause conflicts in cross-border e-discovery. - Japanese companies may have weaknesses in areas like retention policies and cultural perspectives that make adapting to rigorous e-discovery standards challenging. Cooperation will be needed to resolve conflicts that arise from these differences.

1. E-Disclosure in UK
「英国eディスクロージャの理解のために」
Ikuo Takahashi
Bengoshi-BLT Legal Chambers

2. Structure of Litigation
訴訟の構造
Truth
No Jury -Civil
evidence evidence

3. Common Law Country
(Comparison of basic concept)
• “Cards face up on the • Civil Procedure Law in
table” Japan
– “In plain language, – No automatic discovery
litigation in this country ’ • No exchange of list of
cards face up on the documents.
table’(..)It is design to do • Interrogatory is nor so
real justice(..)” Sir John popular.
Donaldson M.R.in Davis v • Requesting party should
Eli Lily & co.[1987] specify the documents.
– “There shall be full – Broad exceptions
disclosure of all evidence – Misunderstanding –
material and necessary in Adversarial system(当事者
the prosecution or defense 主義)
of action”(CPLR3101(a)) – “wild west shooting”

4. Legal issues
• e-disclosure
– Effective to data all over the world ?
• Difference of Civil Procedure law
• Conflict
• Japanese companies
– Not accustomed to e-discovery
• Many weak points

5. Effective to data all over the world(?)
• Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais SA,242 F.R.D
199(E.D.N.Y 2007)
– Judge Kiyo Matsumoto
• ”Lawyers are now responsible for litigation without
borders and discovery without language barriers.”

6. Difference of Civil Procedure law--
Broad protection “for private use”
• CPL Article 220 • “Ringi” document is
(Obligation to Submit usually protected from
Document) production
• Protection
– (d) A document prepared
exclusively for use by the
holder thereof (excluding a
document held by the
State or a local public
entity, which is used by a
public officer for an
organizational purpose).

7. Conflict of Civil procedure
• Data protection
– Online review ”Transfer” or not
• Hague Convention
– Hague Convention(CP 1954 ,service 1965,Evidence 1971 (Japan x)
more)
• Exclusive or not
• Sovereign
– Marc Rich
• Blocking Statute
– France, UK, China, Australia, South Africa
– MAAF case
• French lawyer was sentenced guilty to pay Ten Thousand Euros-
Obstructing Justice
– Cour de Cassation Chambre Criminelle [Cass. Crim.], Paris, Dec.
12, 2007, Juris-Data no. 2007-332254

8. Not accustomed to e-discovery
• Many weak points
– Retention policy does not develop so well
• JP-No discovery rule as US
• Cannot respond litigation hold so well
– Cultural(?) points
• Do not know how rigid e-discovery rule.
– Erase private e-mails
• Japanese Executives do not like depositions.
• Prefer settlement-”Cooperation culture”. Do not strategic
perspective
– not early case assessment
• No systematic information cooperation between IT department
and Legal department
• Japanese people like to take notes. write unnecessary personal
impression.

9. E-Discovery reference Model
（Eディスカバリ参照モデル)
Process
理
preser
vation
保全
Information Identifica Produc presen
management tion Review tion tation
情報管理 識別 レビュー プレゼ
提出
Collect ン
ion
収集
Analysis
分析

10. Differences between US and UK
• Scope?
• Procedure ?
• Decisions?

11. References
• Sedona WG6 “Framework for Analysis of
Cross-Border Discovery Conflicts: A Practical
Guide to Navigating the Competing Currents
of International Data Privacy and e-
Discovery”
– http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/mi
scFiles/publications_html?grp=wgs160

12. One more thing

13. BLT legal Chambers
• Team BLT
– Younger lawyers for digital ages
– Team of resident lawyers & contract lawyers
• Primera Dougenzaka614
• 1-15-3,Dougenzaka Shibuya,Tokyo
• ikuo@comit.jp
• Facebook