E-Discovery Expenses Taxable in Florida

Last month, The Supreme Court of Florida adopted amendments to the Uniform Guidelines on the Taxation of Costs effective January 1, 2014 that specifically allow successful litigants to recover certain “Electronic Discovery Expenses.” Specifically, two categories of taxable e-Discovery costs may now be considered: (1) The cost of producing copies of relevant electronic media in response to a discovery request; and (2) The cost of converting ESI or electronically stored information to a reasonably usable format in response to a discovery request that seeks production in such format. The amendments were drafted by the standing Florida Civil Rules Committee which voted 28-0-1 to add provisions to Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure to allow for the taxation ESI costs, consistent with cost shifting post-trial and recent federal case law awarding costs pursuant to 28 USC § 1920 - Taxation of Costs. My experience has been that under the old uniform guidelines, trial courts only award a modicum of expenses in traditional categories and that the ability to shift costs associated with electronic discovery during post-trial proceedings will be similarly narrow. Perhaps parties would do better to focus their cost-shifting efforts earlier in discovery during litigation, rather than wait until after trial to litigate the issue-- even when parties believe that they will prevail on the merits. Counsel would do well to keep accurate and detailed records of ESI costs if they wish to recoup significant vendor related discovery costs later. See court opinion amending civil rules here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2013/sc13-74.pdf

ESI as Taxable Cost in Florida?

The Florida Bar's Civil Procedure Rules Standing Committee has responded to comments on its proposed three-year cycle amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Included in these is an amendment to the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs to include electronically stored information or ESI, as has been previously incorporated into existing language in Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure. In federal court, prevailing litigants can seek reimbursement of certain e-discovery expenses as taxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). Litigants taxing e-discovery costs have done so with some success. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) allows prevailing parties to recover certain costs and expenses incurred during litigation. Under Rule 54, if a substantiated bill of costs is sent to the clerk, there is a presumption that recovery is proper. However, courts still maintain discretion to reduce any award.  Federal case law suggests 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) should be used to allow a party to shift the entirety of the costs associate with e-discovery. Last year, Florida's out-of-cycle amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) went into effect. See In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure – Electronic Discovery, 95 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2012). During the development of our rule changes, my subcommittee on e-discovery rules discussed the subjects of cost-shifting and taxation of costs for production of ESI. Among the considerations were whether the amendments should also contain changes to the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions. The Florida Supreme Court has previously directed that the Uniform Guidelines be reviewed periodically by the Civil Rules Committee for future revision as needed to improve the ability of trial judges to administer taxing of costs. They also announced a recent policy of discouraging excessive e-discovery and preventing the inclusion of unnecessary ESI in court files. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420, 31 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011).  No opinion on the latest changes has been released. See additional proposed amendments here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/comments/2013/13-74_Petition_ada.pdf

Fla. Bar News: Court Lays Down Rules Governing E-Discovery

The following is a repost of The Florida Bar News story from the forthcoming August 1, 2012 issue quoting me-- http://bit.ly/MEAxsu

The Florida Supreme Court has approved procedural rule amendments governing the discovery and production of electronically stored information (ESI) in civil cases.

“This is the culmination of a six-year effort of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to bring forth modernization of the procedure in Florida in keeping with federal trends for the inclusion of ESI,” said Winter Park attorney Lawrence Kolin, the first chair of the rules committee’s E-Discovery Subcommittee. “I am proud of our ability to utilize amendments to existing rules and to respect the differences in state practice regarding this realm. We now must be sure to educate bench and Bar on this momentous change in Florida civil procedure.”

The court accepted the committee’s proposed changes to seven procedural rules.

Rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure) and 1.201 (Complex Litigation) were amended to address electronic discovery as part of the pretrial procedures, including the possible need for rulings on electronic evidence and “the possibility of an agreement between the parties regarding the extent to which such information should be preserved and the form in which it should be produced,” the opinion said.

Rule 1.280 was amended to specifically allow for discovery of ESI and also set some limitations on such discovery.

It also spells out procedures for the recipient of a discovery request to object to that action if it will cause an undue burden or cost too much.

The court may still grant the request, if the requesting party shows good cause, although some or all of the discovery costs may be imposed on that party.

Another new subdivision of that rule limits electronic discovery if it becomes duplicative or the information can be obtained from another source that is less burdensome or less costly, or if the trouble of producing the information likely outweighs any expected benefit.

Rule 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties) and Rule 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes) were amended to allow for producing ESI in response to an interrogatory or specific request.

“Both rules provide for a party to produce the ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained in or in a reasonably usable form,” the opinion said.

Rule 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery, Sanctions) was amended to remove the possibility of sanctions, except in exceptional circumstances, if ESI was lost “as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.”

Rule 1.410 (Subpoena) was amended to allow for subpoenaing electronic records and providing a procedure and grounds for the subpoena recipient to object.

The new rules are effective September 1.

The court acted July 5 in case no. SC11-1542, In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure – Electronic Discovery.

E-Discovery Rules Effective FL September 1st

The Supreme Court of Florida's opinion just out today adopts amendments to civil rules as previously outlined in my blog below. See full decision here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-1542.pdf
Six years in the making! Now begins the education campaign for bench and bar. Effective September 1, 2012 are amendments to seven existing Florida civil procedure rules: 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena). This is the culmination of a six-year effort initially chaired by me and with the help of members of my subcommittee of lawyers and judges and the Civil Rules Standing Committee of the Florida Bar. These rules will further allow for the ability for neutrals to play a role in dispute resolution of ESI issues in state court cases. 

"This is the culmination of a rigorous effort to modernize procedure in Florida to include electronically stored information,” attorney Lawrence Kolin, of Winter Park, founding chair of the e-discovery rules committee, told told the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists®. See ACEDS Bulletin here - http://aceds.org/news/florida-ediscovery-rules-take-effect-september-1

E-opinions leave out e-discovery rules - electronic service & filing only

In a pair of opinions, the Supreme Court of Florida formally adopted proposed amendments to the Florida rules of court to implement mandatory electronic filing procedures for all documents filed in Florida’s courts. The proposed amendments represent a significant and important step toward the goal of a fully electronic court system by transitioning from permissive to mandatory electronic filing or e-filing. Also in furtherance of this goal, in a separate, related case the justices adopted amendments to the rules of court to require e-mail service of pleadings and documents between parties. All 67 county clerks of court have been directed to be prepared to accept e-filings through the statewide e-portal in the civil divisions by July 1, 2012-- but a subsequent filing by the E-Filing Authority indicates several clerks are still experiencing difficulties that would prevent them from accepting electronic filings on that date. Any clerk may submit a request with the Florida Supreme Court to delay the effective date of these rules in any division or court.  If such a request is granted, an Administrative Order will be issued and published. However, mandatory e-service under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 will begin July 1st September 1st for attorneys practicing in the civil, probate, small claims, and family law divisions of the trial courts, as well as in all appellate cases. Service by e-mail is deemed complete when the e-mail is sent. Additionally, e-mail service is made by attaching a copy of the document to be served in PDF format to an e-mail.  The e-mail must contain the subject line "SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT" in all capital letters, followed by the case  number of the relevant proceeding.  The body of the e-mail must identify the court  in which the proceeding is pending, the case number, the name of the initial party  on each side, the title of each document served with that e-mail, and the sender’s name and telephone number.  The e-mail and attachments together may not exceed 5 megabytes in size; e-mails that exceed the size requirement must be divided into separate e-mails (no one of which may exceed 5 megabytes) and labeled sequentially in the subject line. Given the delay from oral argument last year to passage of these e-rules, it is possible electronic discovery rule amendments in Florida argued earlier this year may be adopted later than expected. That would be consistent with comments made regarding the need for educating the bench and bar on the proposals to include ESI in existing civil rules.

See full opinions here -

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc10-2101.pdf

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc11-399.pdf

UPDATE: CORRECTED OPINION ISSUED 6-26-12 - http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc10-2101_Order_06-26-2012.pdf

The Court sua sponte amends its opinion to change the mandatory date for e-mail service in the civil, probate, small claims, and family law divisions of the trial courts, as well as in all appellate cases, from July 1, 2012, to September 1, 2012! 

SECOND CORRECTED OPINION ISSUED 6-28-12 - http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc10-2101.pdf

Proposed amendment for taxation of ESI costs

The Florida Bar's Civil Procedure Rules Standing Committee is inviting comments on its proposed three-year cycle amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Included in these is an amendment to the Uniform Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs to include electronically stored information or ESI, as has been previously proposed and incorporated into existing language for purposes of bringing electronic discovery rules still absent in Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure.

Uniform Guidelines on Taxation of Costs

28-0-1

Adds provisions for taxation of costs for discovery of electronically stored information.

The number above signifies the vote of committee members. A full text of the proposals can be found on The Florida Bar’s website at www.FloridaBar.org. Interested persons have until August 1, 2012, to submit comments to the committee chair, Hon. Richard Nielsen, nielsera@fljud13.org and to the Bar staff liaison, Ellen Sloyer, at esloyer@flabar.org. See The Florida Bar News notice here: http://bit.ly/Lfxbv9

Neutrals may ease anxiety over Florida’s new E-discovery rules

This podcast featuring my commentary just in from an interview with the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) Editorial Director, Robert Hilson: On March 7, the Florida Supreme Court heard argument on proposed E-discovery rules for state cases, the first such rules for the fourth largest state. The court has put them on fast track, and could approve them by the end of the year. The rules will affect the state’s diverse legal and corporate community and its 63,000 active attorneys. They aim to streamline case management, but they will also impose unfamiliar burdens on practitioners who are new to e-discovery. Neutral third parties, such as special masters, mediators and referees, may be able to assist in these instances. These so-called “neutrals” can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies that did not exist. Their services are not limited to grappling with old or new rules, or to discovery disputes. Lawrence Kolin, an Orlando lawyer and full-time mediator, chaired the Florida Bar committee that helped craft the e-discovery rules the Supreme Court is considering. In this ACEDS podcast, he tells how neutrals can help litigants navigate e-discovery pitfalls and resolve expensive battles before they arise. “I try to focus parties on the merits and try to get them off using e-discovery as a sword or shield,” says Kolin. “Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings if performed early enough in the litigation.”
Podcast introduction:
http://aceds.org/aceds-ediscovery-mediation-podcast-with-lawrence-kolin
Listen to .mp3 here:
http://aceds.org/sites/default/files/ACEDS%20Mediation%20Podcast%20with%20Neutral%20Lawrence%20Kolin.mp3

ACEDS 2012 and Florida's Forthcoming Rules

I spent the last couple of days at the national annual conference of the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS). There were many vendors, attorneys and even court personnel attending. Of particular interest was a pilot program developed by Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Robert Barth. That court has identified special masters and e-neutrals as fulfilling the need to effectively address issues presented by the preservation, collection and production of relevant Electronically Stored Information (ESI) during the litigation process. The parties in those cases reportedly benefit from the appointment of Electronic Discovery Special Masters (EDSMs) in appropriate cases. Any findings of fact or conclusions of law reached by the EDSM will be presented to the court as a report and recommendation, to which the parties will have the opportunity to object, prior to a de novo review by the court (see details at - http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Pages/ediscovorey.htm).  Florida's draft rules do include a case management topic of optional appointment of special magistrates in the event such issues need to be referred.  This was discussed during an ACEDS panel I served on with my successor on the Florida Civil Rules Committee, Kevin Johnson. We also spoke on the likelihood of a decision from the Supreme Court of Florida concerning the proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and any time frame for implementation. Given the largely friendly reception during oral argument, it appears adoption of the language is imminent, but the forthcoming opinion could delay the effective date of the rules, given the Court's concern for educating the bench and bar.

I'll be speaking at the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists

Join me at ACEDS 2012 Annual Conference and Exhibition
 http://aceds.org/conference/program-panels#Sunshine
(I'll be speaking April 3rd).

4:40 PM - 5:50 PM

Session: You can’t spell Sunshine without ‘ESI’: What you should expect under the new Florida e-discovery state rules

Florida will soon have e-discovery rules for its state courts for the first time. The product of a long process led by the Florida Bar, which elicited the views of urban and rural practitioners and judges throughout the very diverse state, the proposed rules are not mirror images of the federal e-discovery rules. They are a sea change in Florida legal procedure. Florida’s 63,000 practicing attorneys, their litigation support and IT staffs, as well as their clients, will be challenged. Most of them are unfamiliar with e-discovery and the duties it entails. What do the proposed Florida state rules require? How do they differ from the Federal e-discovery rules? When are they likely to be approved by the Florida Supreme Court? How should Florida lawyers prepare to handle them well? What penalties are they likely to face for mishandling electronically stored information, and how do you avoid them? In this special panel, experts from around the state, including the lawyer who chaired the Florida Bar rules committee, will show you what you must do to prepare and to implement them when they arrive. This is a vital panel for all Florida legal practitioners and their staffs and for the service providers that do business in the Sunshine State.

Monday-Wednesday, April 2-4, 2012
The Westin Diplomat | Hollywood, Florida USA
Speaker Courtesy Savings Voucher From Lawrence H. Kolin
Save $150 if you use Code "Kolin"
Priceless Knowledge and Networking, Plus Up to 17 CLE Credits
Phone: 786-517-2701
Online: ACEDS.org/conference/registration

Supreme Court of Florida Considers E-Discovery Rules

This morning, the Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument in case SC11-1542 on the amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure concerning E-Discovery. The proposed amendments add electronically stored information or ESI into existing rules and are mostly modeled on the federal rule changes implemented by Congress in 2006. Following a multi-year effort by the Civil Procedure Rules Subcommittee on E-Discovery that I formed in January 2006, these rules were presented to the Florida Bar Board of Governors and sent on to the court for comment and adoption.

Justice Barbara Pariente, with her iPad prominently displayed on the bench, began to pepper Chair, Kevin Johnson (whom I tapped as my successor upon my terming off the Civil Rules standing committee) shortly after he began. She engaged in congratulating the seemingly unanimous approval by the members of the Bar in the run-up to making these rules official.

Justice Pariente continued with questions regarding her experience as a litigator in producing documents in products cases. Mr. Johnson explained that the only difference from the federal rules is the lack of a mandatory meet and confer early in the case. However, there is an available category found in the state case management rules 1.200 and 1.201.

Justice Quince was concerned over the format of production of the items requested by a litigant and that those decisions are left to the trial judge. Justice Perry was concerned about the party having the best expert to hide the ball with an inexperienced line judge.

Doug Caldwell of the Rumberger firm appeared to applaud the effort, but on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers, did not feel the federal rules go far enough. He cited efforts in the federal rules advisory committee to remedy the inefficiencies experienced in that system. Mr. Caldwell echoed Henry Trawick’s comments filed about the burden on the producing party. His anecdote of a ‘mom and pop’ store with an iPhone was met with skepticism from Justice Pariente. Justice Polston pointed out the existing rules allow for trial judges to argue scope in 1.280.

Retired Circuit Judge Ralph Artigliere, with whom I’ve taught at OSCA’s Florida Judicial College, commented on preservation and the existing case law for spoliation that developed out of products and malpractice cases. He added that Business Courts can make local rules more specific to manner of production. He also mentioned the change in culture reflecting a burden on lawyers to understand the evidence their clients may have and responsibility to the court, Education of the bench and bar was discussed and Justice Lewis went as far as talking about mandatory court education or bar CLE to be coordinated by the budget-less Civil Rules committee.

Not a clue as to the timing of implementation of these rule amendments was given during the thirty-seven minute argument, though I liked Justice Pariente's emphasis on wide agreement of committee and bar to pass the new rules. Fingers crossed!

See oral argument at:
http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/archives/flash/viewcase.php?case=11-1542

One week until Oral Argument on FL E-Discovery Rules

The Supreme Court of Florida, which has the final say on state civil procedure rules, will hear oral argument next week, on March 7, 2012, in Tallahassee. No date has been set for when the rules would become effective. The proposed rules are a compromise between the views of urban lawyers, who urged adoption, and those in rural areas who see no need for change in the existing rules of civil procedure.

“Small firms and solo practitioners think these rules are for the big firms and big cases, but it will affect everyone,” says attorney Lawrence Kolin, of Winter Park, who chaired the e-discovery rules subcommittee before Johnson.

A learning curve will impact the state’s 93,000 licensed attorneys, of which 63,000 actively practice law, especially those unfamiliar with e-discovery. They stress a proactive approach to discovery and allow the parties to request a non-mandatory early case management conference.

The federal rules and court decisions addressing e-discovery can guide the state’s lawyers and judges as they begin to walk through the risky, expensive issues that electronic evidence entails. Except for the case management conference, which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires at 26(f), the proposed Florida rules track their federal counterparts in large measure. The new rules do provide for a state court case management discussion on ESI under Rule 1.200.

Big law and big business is counterbalanced by a large and diverse community of small firms and sole practitioners, many in rural area where law is practiced as it was decades ago. This complexion factored in the final content of the rules and the discussions surrounding them.

“The question I heard most is ‘where is this stuff on the bar exam?’” Kolin says, noting that small firms and practitioners were the most vociferous opponents.

See full ACEDS article here:

http://aceds.org/news/florida-supreme-court-fast-tracks-first-florida-e-discovery-state-rules-sets-hearing-march-7

Oral Argument on FL E-Discovery Rules Scheduled 2012

Per the Supreme Court of Florida, oral argument on the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee's out-of-cycle report proposing rule amendments to address discovery of electronically stored information or ESI will take place March 7, 2012 in Case No.: SC11-1542.

The proposed amendments are to Rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena).

A full copy of the language is posted at: www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/comments/index.shtml

Last day for comments on E-Discovery Rules

Per the Supreme Court of Florida, the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee has submitted an out-of-cycle report proposing rule amendments to address discovery of electronically stored information or ESI.

The committee proposes amendments to rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena).

The Florida Supreme Court invites comment on the proposed amendments by filing an original and nine paper copies by October 17, 2011 with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on current committee chair, Kevin Johnson, Esq., 201 N Franklin Street, Suite 1600, Tampa 33602-5110, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case.

The committee chair has until November 7 to file a response to any comments filed with the court. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the court’s administrative order In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004).

As reported by Florida Bar News:

http://tinyurl.com/3jqv5de

Rules proposed in PDF at Florida Supreme Court's website:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/probin/sc11-1542_PublicationNotice.pdf

E-discovery rules for Florida approved by Bar; next headed to Supreme Court

This summer, The Florida Bar Civil Rules committee finally approved draft rule amendments of its longstanding E-Discovery subcommittee. The Florida Bar Board of Governors recently gave its unanimous blessing to the Expedited Submission of Proposed Amendments to Address Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. These new rules are likely to be submitted to the Supreme Court of Florida off-cycle and soon published for comment.

Following Congress’s 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which coincide with increasing reliance in modern communication on email, documents, and electronic information residing in computers, storage devices, handhelds, and smartphones, it was decided that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure also needed to be updated. Likewise, exponential growth in the volume of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in possession of parties to litigation, and the significant growth in the frequency with which litigants and courts have since had to address issues related to the discoverability, retrieval, review, and production of ESI, also brought about these changes, with which all practitioners should now become familiar.

After studying the rules enacted in just over half of the states in this country with the intention of facilitating the development of proposed changes to Florida's Rules, the subcommittee adopted core principles that provided predictability by tracking language used in the federal rules so that existing precedents might be applied. Of course, this was done recognizing that the culture in state courts, with its greater variety of litigation, is different than that in federal practice. Also, issues involving information technology are no longer limited to complex or commercial litigation; they are increasingly evident in the full range of civil cases that routinely involve electronic evidence.

Additionally, resources available to litigants are often different in state court cases than in federal litigation. As such, keeping discovery reasonable and cost-effective, and preventing the cost and burden of electronic discovery from being outcome-determinative rather than based on the merits (or at least from being unduly favorable to either requesting or responding parties), was considered.

It should be noted that while encouraging early, meaningful, and reasonable cooperation and communication among parties in a desire to minimize the frequency with which disputes must be resolved by the courts, the mandatory “meet and confer” of the federal system seemed impracticable to the full standing committee, which overwhelmingly voted against imposing such requirements in the state rules.

Changes are entirely incorporated into existing rules and specifically include amendments to address ESI within Rules 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.340, 1.350, 1.380 and 1.410 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

For example, case management in Rule 1.200, as well as Rule 1.201 involving complex litigation, will now include the ability to address topics such as: considering the voluntary exchange of ESI and stipulations for authenticity; considering the need for advance rulings from the court on admissibility; and discussing the possibility of agreements (whether by parties or by referral to a special magistrate, master, other neutral or mediation) on preservation of evidence, the form in which such evidence should be produced, and whether discovery of such information should be conducted in phases or limited to particular individuals, time periods, or sources.

Other changes include limitations on discovering ESI under Rule 1.280, such as objecting to discovery from sources not reasonably accessible because of burden or cost. On a motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the information sought or the format requested is not reasonably accessible. However, the court, upon finding good cause, may require and specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is sought be paid by the party seeking the discovery.

In determining any motion involving discovery of ESI contemplated by Rule 1.280, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (2) the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

State practitioners will be glad to know that Rule 1.380 includes a safe harbor, just as in the federal rules, such that absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions for failing to provide ESI lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

These amendments were the result of much debate among attorneys in diverse areas of practice, and members of the judiciary and thorough study of the application of the federal rules amendments in this area since their passage. The hope is that parties will seek to work though anticipated issues before judicial intervention, whenever possible, but that the guidance of developing federal case law in this area of ESI will be instructive, as few reported Florida cases exist.

Florida E-Discovery Rules fast-tracked following approval of standing committee

On June 23, 2011, following six years of subcommittee study, debate and drafting, the full Civil Rules committee finally approved the draft E-discovery rules for submission off-cycle to the Supreme Court of Florida.

The changes are reflected in the most recent iteration of the rules package fresh from the drafting subcommittee which now specifically include Electronically Stored Information or "ESI" and propose to revise Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: RULE 1.200. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE, RULE 1.201. COMPLEX LITIGATION, RULE 1.280. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY, RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES, RULE 1.350. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER PURPOSES, RULE 1.380. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS, and RULE 1.410. SUBPOENA.

Detailed draft rule language with strike-through portions visible is available in the June 2011 Annual Convention Meeting Agenda found here:

http://www.floridabar.org/cmdocs/cm210.nsf/WDOCS/28100E0461926D96852578A8006605AB