Evidence
Opponent Computer Searches Likelier Under Revised Civ Pro Rule
Posted Mar 12, 2008, 06:11 pm CDT
By Martha Neil
As a number of discovery debacles in recent years make clear, law firms aren't always as diligent as they should be about helping clients produce all of the electronic material requested in discovery.
Now, however, clients who resist such evidentiary requests may find themselves facing a powerful new enforcement tool: computer search squads. A late 2006 revision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) makes such opposing-party onslaughts more likely. It specifically provides that a party may request court permission to conduct an on-site search of an opponent's premises for discoverable electronic information, according to the National Law Journal.
Among the material that could be sought by such enforcement squads, the article says, are "any data repository or combination of repositories, including live e-mail systems, archive e-mail files (such as Outlook PST files), laptop and desktop computers, portable backup media, BlackBerrys, USB 'keychain' drives, network servers, home directories, shared files and backup tapes."
A comment by the drafters of the revised rule cites the importance of the materials sought, whether they can be obtained elsewhere, any discovery foot-dragging that may previously have occurred and the parties' resources as factors to consider concerning such requests for opposing-party searches.
Read the full article.
Related Stories
- Public Reprimand Recommended for Fla. Appeals Court Judge
Jul 18, 2008, 05:06 pm CDT - New Jersey Woman Sues Surgeon Over Temporary Rose Tattoo
Jul 18, 2008, 03:12 pm CDT - Famed Trial Lawyer Gerry Spence: My New Blog Frightens Me
Jul 18, 2008, 02:49 pm CDT - 2 Ex-Judges, 1 Attorney Indicted in Georgia Corruption Case
Jul 18, 2008, 01:13 pm CDT
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Mulder - 4 months, 5 days, 23 hours, 29 minutes ago
Computer forensics is NOT real forensics!
Computers are NOT secure enought to be treated this way.
This only brings in regulation and destruction of IT.
Most people have no clue of how problematic IT really is, the law should not unbalance everything for really corrupt business monopolies.
Posted by Suoremacy Claus - 4 months, 3 days, 18 hours, 17 minutes ago
One should always demand the personal, home, and business computers and gadgets of the adverse lawyer. Get a court order, and push aside anyone resisting, including kids. Call the police to handcuff them to the radiator if they get rough.
One is looking for evidence of animus, bias, for an improper motive. Any motive outside of the accepted goals of torts is improper. The adverse lawyer is responsible for the removal of privileged communication, at his own cost. One should demand review of these materials by a representative of the judge, to insure the lawyer is not abusing these lawyer self-dealt, unconscionable privileges.
If one happens to find child porn, or other evidence of misconduct, one should have the courtesy to privately discuss how to handle that discovery with the adverse lawyer. The lawyer on one’s side has duties to report unprofessional conduct.
The victim of the land pirate should always make sure the adverse land pirate joins him in the world of uncertainty. A failure to assert all legal rights, especially after a formal demand in writing by the lawyer victim, is legal malpractice by the land pirate on one’s side.
Next, the biased pro-lawyer rent seeking judge’s finances should be reviewed with a fine tooth comb. Demand an investigation by the political corruption division of the federal attorney’s office, if the adverse side has ever made a campaign contribution.
No lawyer should feel certainty when attacking the productive sectors of our nation’s economy.