e-Discovery Team Training
Sec. 3 – Mod. AStudy at you own time, your own place, your own pace.
Welcome to Module 3-A.
Lectures by Professor Steven Gensler and Judge John Facciola on e-Discovery and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Steven S. Gensler is a Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma and author of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules and Commentary (West). He is one of the country’s foremost scholars on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, especially on the relationship of the rules and electronic discovery. He is also a member of the influential Federal Rules Committee that studies all proposals for amendments to the rules and ultimately makes recommendations to Congress and the Supreme Court.
This video is from an Academic Symposium that Professor Gensler did with Professor Losey at Northern Illinois University School of Law with Judge John Facciola and Jason Baron in 2010. This was an ethics symposium on electronic discovery. Here Professor Genlser provides a ninety year overview of the rules and the impact of this history on the current movement towards cooperative discovery.
Judge John Facciola (shown right) spoke immediately after Professor Gensler at the NIU event. This video of his talk will give you a good idea of how the federal judiciary are reacting to the new rules and adopting a more hands-on managerial approach to e-discovery. Judge Facciola is well known to the bench and Bar as one of the leading experts in the world on this subject.
Judge John Facciola spoke immediately after Professor Gensler at the NIU event. This video of his talk will give you a good idea of how the federal judiciary are reacting to the new rules and adopting a more hands-on managerial approach to e-discovery. Judge Facciola is well known to the bench and Bar as one of the leading experts in the world on this subject.
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Read the December 2006 Rule Amendments and Commentaries. Consider which rule you find most perplexing and why, or if you are not perplexed about any of these, then the most interesting and why.
NON-MANDATORY READING. For still more reading, read a few of the hundreds of articles written on the 2006 rules of e-discovery. Do you see any inconsistencies between the articles? .
EXERCISE: Study the 2015 revisions. Which of the revisions was suggested by Ralph Losey? How do you think the 2015 revision have impacted the discovery process. Why do you think some people argue none of these rule revisions, 2006 and 2015, make any difference?
Students are invited to leave a public comment below. Insights that might help other students are especially welcome. Let’s collaborate!
Copyright Ralph Losey 2015
On Monday, June 1, 2015, the Colorado State Judicial Branch released Rule Change 2015(05). Rule Change 2015(05) amends the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The changes are extensive and mirror the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to the new Comment to Rule 1, “The 2015 amendments are the next step in a wave of reform literally sweeping the nation. This reform movement aims to create a significant change in the existing culture of pretrial discovery with the goal of emphasizing and enforcing Rule 1’s mandate that discovery be administered to make litigation just, speedy, and inexpensive. One of the primary movers of this reform effort is a realization that the cost and delays of the existing litigation process is denying meaningful access to the judicial system for many people.” The rule change also added a new form, JDF 622, “Proposed Case Management Order.” The changes were adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court on May 28, 2015, and are effective July 1, 2015, for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015.
(From Changes Announced to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, at http://bit.ly/1IyZyOZ.