Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For the fourth time, Exterro has conducted an in-depth survey of federal judges in order to understand better how they see e-discovery law and practice changing. In 2018, partnering with EDRM at Duke Law and BDO, this survey reached farther and deeper than ever before, with 30 federal judges responding to questions covering e-discovery competency, improvements to e-discovery practice, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence that govern e-discovery.
Past surveys of the federal judiciary have compared the judges' responses to those of attorneys or invited e-discovery experts to offer their thoughts on what the results meant. This year, in addition to gathering and analyzing the opinions of 30 federal judges, the survey contains expert analysis of the results from eight sitting and recently retired federal judges.
Reviewing the survey data and the judges' analysis, four key themes emerged.
Data
The survey asked judges to agree or disagree with the statement, “The typical attorney possesses the legal and technical subject matter knowledge required to effectively counsel clients on e-discovery matters.”
Analysis
Two years on from the latest FRCP amendments, and almost 15 years into the e-discovery era of the courts, the federal bench sees incremental, rather than dramatic, progress in attorneys' e-discovery skills. While more competent in legal and technical issues, their skill levels still differ substantially.
According to Hon. John Facciola, US Magistrate Judge, District of Columbia (Ret.): “How do these lawyers expect to survive, let alone prosper, when they do not understand the implications for litigation of how their clients create, transmit and keep the information that is the very life blood of a lawsuit?”
Data
Asked to identify the causes of e-discovery mistakes, judges overwhelmingly blamed attorneys' lack of cooperation, with insufficient e-discovery education and the lack of defensible policies tied for a distant second place.
Analysis
Judges have adopted more active case-management strategies, doing what they can to ensure cooperation, to reduce gamesmanship, and to expedite “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolutions. Greater cooperation, especially early in e-discovery; increased preparation, particularly around their clients' e-discovery practices; and the continuing embrace of proportionality can all yield significant returns in improving e-discovery outcomes.
Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, Federal Judge, Western District of Texas stated: “Cooperation requires preparation and an understanding of the case prior to reaching agreements about the scope of discovery, preservation obligations, and form of production.”
Data
Asked to identify ways to improve e-discovery practices, judges recommended education as the top means to do so. Almost three quarters recommended continuing legal education, followed by academic research, case law resources, and technical training.
Analysis
Judges embrace proactive strategies to create this change. In a follow-up question asking judges to identify the best way to get the legal community to take e-discovery more seriously, just under half chose mandatory e-discovery education. (33% chose CLEs and another 13% chose law school requirements.) None of the surveyed judges recommended issuing more sanctions.
It was the belief of Michelle Childs, United States District Judge, District of South Carolina that “Consistent training of lawyers and judges on e-discovery developments is necessary to stay abreast of the ever-evolving technology and to ensure the practical and efficient management of litigation.”
Data
When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “The new FRCP e-discovery rules have helped solve many problems that currently occur in e-discovery today,” the surveyed judges overwhelmingly agreed. More than 73% somewhat or strongly agreed with that idea. Only 8% disagreed, and 19% were neutral.
Analysis
Judges use the Rules to prod antagonistic parties toward cooperation and to achieve equitable outcomes. Counsel should make similar use of the Rules, but, in the judges' eyes, do not yet do so, with a lack of familiarity with the amendments or the insistence upon an adversarial outlook being the likely causes.
Judge Rodriguez summed it up best: “The 2016 amendments contemplated a 'front end' system, where counsel conducted meaningful analysis of the case as early as possible, held meet and confer sessions with opposition, and then presented issues they had been spotted to the judge at the Rule 16 hearing. This is not occurring.”
Data
When asked to identify elements of a “reasonable process” to preserve electronically stored information, the judges listed many tasks automated by e-discovery software platforms.
Analysis
One aspect of e-discovery where technology can play a role is in ensuring that parties with a reasonable expectation of litigation are using a “reasonable process” to preserve information. Tracking legal holds — along with e-discovery activities later in the EDRM such as document review — can be accomplished with software, reducing both risk and expense.
According to Judge Rodriguez: “Although every now and then there is a dispute regarding when the duty to preserve was triggered, that has not been the focus of most recent cases …. The amount of relevant information preserved has now become the central inquiry.”
The amended FRCP has refocused judges' attention on achieving desirable outcomes as much as enforcing the Rules. At this time, they are waiting — and hoping — for attorneys to make a similar change of mindset.
If you'd like to review the complete 4th Annual Federal Judges Survey, download it from Exterro's website.
*****
Mike Hamilton is the Director of E-Discovery Programs at Exterro. With a legal and business background, Mike is experienced and passionate about creating thoughtful, out-of-the-box educational resources that help keep legal teams interested and on top of emerging need to know e-discovery issues.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In advance of Legalweek '25, a Q&A with conference speaker Ryan Phelan, a partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun and founder and moderator of legal blog PatentNext, to discuss how courts and jurisdictions are handling novel technologies, the copyrightability of AI-assisted art, and more.
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.