6 Responses to An Open Letter to the Judiciary – Can We Talk? (Part Two)

  1. Deep deep read. Thanks for posting part two of this.

  2. Tinzing Artmann says:

    Great rationalization and argument well made!! Thank God we don’t follow EU data policy law, then we are definately doomed. EU data privacy law is so strict – I hear from CLEs that I took online. If that kind of application comes to US, how can a small business owners get a day in the court because, first of all, he/she has to go through discovery phase that attorneys will have to review data for confidentiality and spend time designating these documents. Given how businesses operate now adays- 90% of communication in the form of ESI, scope of discovery becomes very broad. Gigabytes are becoming talk of the past now, and Terabytes are in now. So to serve the true purpose of justice and fairness to American business owners, we truly need some kind of a pre-discovery period and post discovery evidence phase. How can a company’s discovery production if not used as an evidence in trial serve public’s interest! Great post!!

  3. […] confidentiality rights, as my publication of the guest blog article over the last two weeks shows, An Open Letter to the Judiciary – Can We Talk? So why don’t we start with that […]

  4. “To satisfy the “good cause” portion of the Rule, either courts can recognize the costs and burdens on their own, citing any of the numerous opinions or articles that speak about the high cost of discovery, or require that the party advocating for the umbrella protective order make a preliminary showing that the subject matter of the discovery requests is such that the production of business sensitive information is required (e.g., information relating to pricing, sales plans, profitability, marketing initiatives, personnel, financial performance, etc.) and that the volume is expected to be significant.[31] Once such a showing is made, an umbrella protective order allowing for all documents during the discovery phase to be designated as confidential could (and should) be issued. Nor would such a procedure represent a radical departure from recognized and accepted practices. As long ago as 1986 – during the infancy of the electronic age and well before the advent of massive and wide-spread electronic business communications – the Third Circuit, in reliance on the then-existing Manual for Complex Litigation, stated:”

    that is my thought right there..

  5. […] The primary expense of e-discovery comes from the document search and review process; most estimate that it constitutes from 60% to 80% of the total. The core expense of the review process comes from the final manual quality control checks of each document to be produced to verify relevancy and to protect confidentiality by redaction and privilege logging. Confidentiality protection is an enormous problem in litigation. See Anonymous, An Open Letter to the Judiciary – Can We Talk? Parts One and Two. […]

  6. […] An Open Letter to the Judiciary: Can We Talk? (part two) Read article » […]

%d bloggers like this: