FRCP Compliance how to manage electronic compliance for public and private companies

FRCP Rules & California’s New E-Discovery Rules Compared

The state of California has its own set rules for e-Discovery that does share key similarities to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also share some differences. A wonderfully brief and concise blog posting from Rob Robinson on his InfoGovernance Engagement Area blog defines each of these.

I encourage blog readers to visit his blog directly to help boost visits for his post, but for the sake of convenience, the information is found below:

The Key Similarities Between The California and Federal Rules:

• Broad Definitions of ESI
• Inspection, Copying, and Sampling of ESI
• Specification of Form of ESI Production and Objection Thereto
• Sanctions for Failures to Produce, and Safe Harbors for Data Lost Due To Routine Good Faith System Operations
• Return of Inadvertently Produced Privileged ESI (But No FRE 502 Equivalent)
• EDD Applies to Third Party Subpoenas

The Key Differences Between The California and Federal Rules:

Timing of Discovery and Early Meeting E-Discovery Discussions

• Both sets of rules mandate early meetings of counsel regarding e-discovery issues.
• California allows discovery before early discussion.

Dealing with Requests for ESI that is Allegedly Not Reasonably Accessible

• California requires responses containing detailed objections as to accessibility; failure to object is a waiver of the accessibility argument.
• Federal rules do not on their face require this degree of specificity.

To read California's bill, click this link for a .pdf of the law.

Once again, big thanks to the panelists responsible for this information, Stanley M. Gibson, Esq. and Dan P. Sedor, Jeffer, Esq. each of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP. As well as to Rob Robinson for sharing on his blog.