e-Discovery Planning

To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, “If you can keep your head, while all others are losing theirs and blaming it on you – you’ve probably created a good plan”.

In many engagements, Wortzman Nickle is brought into the fray long after work has started. We are asked to take over bits and pieces of what one or more groups of people have been working on. Although we are presented with hard drives, images, backup tapes and paper, very rarely will we be provided with that key ingredient – “The Plan”.

Whether you are in-house counsel, outside counsel or a third party consultant, in many discovery matters, you’ll be brought into a situation and asked to “handle it”. The first daunting challenge that you will face is getting everyone to slow down and reassess.  There’s such a huge desire to keep things moving that no one wants to take the time to sort out exactly what has transpired and try to link that to the eventual desired outcomes.

If you’re put into one of these situations it is important that you’re not pulled in to the overall panic. There are some basic steps to take:

• Take a moment to write down the issues involved and potential outcomes
• Determine how much has been spent already on specific tasks, and whether the results were beneficial to the final goal.
• Set out exactly what human and technical resources are available
• Prepare a written plan of what will be done, when and by whom

To begin, catalogue the issues and resources that are available and to lay out a concise plan for how to track them.

Creating the plan is, however, just the start.  Another important element is in having all the stakeholders sign off on their part of the plan.  Ensure that there is an approval or verification step so that everyone understands their part of the plan.  Insist on getting a response to sending out project files and ensure that there is a single point of contact that will help with tracking all of the affiliated tasks.  A strong project plan needs constant monitoring.

Establish regular updates via email or conference call to ensure that all parties know of project progress. To achieve group collaboration, consider using a shared planning tool. Among other things, this helps cut down the “blame game” emails that tend to work their way around. If you’re sharing project management files, there’s all kinds of great ways using flags and colors (and in some cases even sounds) to alert everyone interested as to who has fallen down on the job, in a timely and constructive manner, so that steps can be taken to bring the project back on track.

Some of these points may seem to be fairly basic or common sense. Nevertheless, as in many areas of life, common sense tends to go out the window when a crisis hits. Taking a moment to assemble a plan, allows you to remain focused on what needs to be done to ensure a successful outcome.

Wortzman Nickle at North America’s Largest e-Discovery Conference!

On Monday, September 19, 2011, Sedona Canada, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association, the Advocates Society and the Ontario e-Discovery Implementation Committee collaborated to present “The Ontario e-Discovery Institute: e-Discovery for All Cases and All Lawyers” in Toronto, Ontario. Reported to be the largest e-discovery conference in North America, over 610 people attended in person or by live webinar. It was a very diverse audience from across the country, illustrating a very real interest in all things e-discovery.

Susan Wortzman and Susan Nickle participated on panels on “e-Discovery Negligence” and “Cost Containment and e-Discovery”, respectively. Other panels featured Canadian and American judges and masters, members of the Bar from across Canada and the United States, vendors and litigation support professionals. This multi-perspective approach led to interesting and spirited discussions about privacy, cost-containment, emerging technologies, and other topical e-discovery issues.

Stay tuned to our blog as we feature some of these issues in upcoming posts!

Wortzman Nickle’s Training Sessions – Now Accredited by LSUC

Over the past several years, the Susans have worked with a significant number of Canada’s top law firms. Several of these firms have invited us in-house, to speak to groups of litigators and business lawyers about the perils and opportunities inherent in e-discovery, and the benefits of proper records management. Each session is 90 minutes in length. These presentations have evolved over time to keep pace with the changes in technology and approach to discovery.

We are pleased to announce that these Wortzman Nickle education programs have now been accredited by the Law Society of Upper Canada as follows:

• Our e-Discovery program has been accredited for 1 hour toward the New Member Requirement and 0.5 hours toward the Professionalism Requirement for ongoing members.
• Our 90 minute Records Management program has been accredited for 1.5 hours toward the New Member Requirement and 1 hour toward the Professionalism Requirement for ongoing members.

These time-effective and interactive sessions are ideal for a lunch meeting or firm retreat. Call us to discuss bringing these sessions to your team.

Wortzman Nickle at the Osgoode Short Course on Obtaining, Producing and Presenting Electronic Evidence

This year, Wortzman Nickle presented on three separate topics at the Osgoode course on Electronic Evidence, held in Toronto on January 24^th and 25^th.

Chuck Rothman and Karen Groulx of Pallett Valo LLP presented the “Admissibility of Electronic Evidence”. The unique properties of digital information compared to its paper counterpart were explored, and the speakers emphasized that admissibility needs to be considered from the start – a misunderstanding regarding the process that created the electronically stored information may ultimately render the information inadmissible.

Chuck and Karen also discussed social networks and cloud computing, and how they may impact electronic discovery. The growth of social networking in the corporate environment is becoming exponential – when was the last time you saw an ad that didn’t ask you to visit the company’s Facebook page? The use of cloud computing is also growing at a substantial rate, with some predictions suggesting that most electronically stored information will be stored “in the cloud” in ten years. Although these technologies will change how electronic discovery is conducted, the basic tenants will remain the same – electronic discovery is still discovery, with the same legal considerations. Only the techniques are different.

Susan Wortzman and Susan Nickle explored “Obtaining Relevant Electronic Evidence”, with a focus on how to defensibly obtain such information first from one’s own client, and then from opposing parties. One of the key issues raised by lawyers in the audience was how to properly cooperate with opposing counsel when he/she refuses to participate in the discovery plan/meet and confer process. While this lack of collaboration (regrettably) continues to be a problem, there are ways to protect your own client. In such circumstances, Susan Wortzman recommends drafting your own client’s discovery plan and sending it to the other side. By failing to respond, counsel may tacitly approve the plan.

As conference season is now in full swing, you can expect to see reports from a number of pending conferences, including Legal Tech New York 2011, in the coming weeks.

Live From Applied Discovery’s “Understanding Proportionality”

Tuesday morning, Lexis Nexis sponsored a panel discussion on proportionality, discovery plans, and the effects that the new Ontario rules are having on the way litigation is being carried out. The panel consisted of Master Calum Macleod, Kelly Freidman of Ogilvy Renault, and our very own Susan Nickle.

Proportionality was described as one component of a set of rules designed to encourage a cultural change in the legal community. It is no longer acceptable to proceed unilaterally – parties must come together sooner and communicate more often, in order establish a real dialog and focus on the issues at the beginning of the matter, not at the end.

The new rules, and particularly the requirement for a discovery plan, are leading lawyers to develop a better understanding of technology. To be sure, most lawyers will not become techno-geeks, but it is important for lawyers to understand how electronic information is stored and where it likely resides. It is equally important for lawyers to appreciate that discovery has not changed just because documents are stored electronically – in the end, the case will hinge on same handful of documents. The only difference is that those documents will fit on a CD rather than in a banker’s box.

There were many questions from the approximately 90 people in attendance, including dialogue about  the concept of proportionality forcing litigants to think of alternative forms of proof, as some traditional forms of proof may be too cost-prohibitive.

The seminar clearly illustrated that the new rules are having an influence, and will continue to shape litigation into a more manageable, cost effective tool to resolve disputes.

The New Rules: Appealed and Appealing

 The case law continues to build under Ontario’s new Rules of Civil Procedure. Courts appear to see the appeal of not only the amendments themselves, but of the basic principles underlying those involved in discovery, proportionality and reasonableness in particular. 

The Appeal

These basic principles (in part) formed the subject matter of the recent appeal case of Wahid v. Malinovski, 2010, ONSC CanLII 3249, decided on July 7, 2010.  The court was asked to overturn the order of a Master who had ordered Wahid to provide a further Affidavit of Documents and to produce certain relevant document by a determined date. The main grounds for the appeal were that the Master misapplied Rule 29.01, that she failed to apply the “purpose and spirit of the new Rules”, that she misapprehended the evidence regarding the relevance of the requested documents, and lastly, that she failed to exercise her discretion judicially in granting an award of costs. 

The Dismissal

The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. 

The value of this case?

In its decision, the court confirms that the amendments to the Rules do not negate pre-existing discovery obligations or judicial discretion.  

Pursuant to Rule 30.04(5), the court may at any time order production of unprivileged, relevant documents in the possession, control or power of a party…[n]one of the new Rules amendments hamstring the court’s discretion under Rule 30.04(5) to order production of documents for discovery. (para. 11) 

Further, the basic principles of fairness and efficiency in litigation, and the doctrine of proportionality continue to be endorsed by courts:  

Discovery is to facilitate settlement or, if that is not achievable, to make the trial process more efficient and fair. Concerns about discoveries being unduly long and costly, sometimes turning into fishing expeditions, have stewed in recent years:  see Osborne Report at 59. New provisions were added and certain provisions of the Rules were amended…to streamline the discovery process.” (para. 6) 

Rule 29.2.03 sets out a list of factors to be considered by a court when ordering production of unprivileged, relevant documents in the possession control or power of a party (including time, expense, prejudice, undue interference with the orderly progress of the action, availability of the information or record)…underpinning all of the factors listed in the Rule is the overriding principle of proportionality. (para. 9)

Uncooperative Litigants Beware – Discovery Plans Are Not Optional

Litigants who are still operating under the assumption that meet and confer sessions/discovery plans are merely optional should take note. Recent case law under the new Ontario Rule 29.1.03 confirms that courts are willing and able to mandate discovery plans.

In TELUS Communications Company v. Sharp, 2010 ONSC 2878 (CanLII), Master Donald E. Short considered the scope of Rule 29.1.03, requiring that parties to an action agree to a discovery plan. The defendant in the case had failed to serve an Affidavit of Documents or to communicate with the plaintiff regarding his availability for discoveries.

Noting that the language of the applicable sub-sections is mandatory (”the parties to the action shall agree to a discovery plan”), Master Short turned to the issue of what occurs when the parties fail to make the directed agreement. He noted that while the new Rules address some of the consequences of a failure to agree on a Discovery Plan, including the ability of the court to refuse to grant any relief or costs, they do not provide specific guidance with respect to the imposition of a plan.

Expressly citing sub-Rules 1.04(1) and (2) which address the General Principle and Proportionality provisions of the Rules, and noting that where specific matters are not provided for in the rules, determination by analogy shall be utilized, Master Short concluded he had the authority to impose a Discovery Plan upon an unwilling litigant.

It is gratifying to see the courts embracing the principles of cooperation and proportionality in the discovery context. Stay tuned as the Ontario courts consider and rule upon other cases under the 2010 amendments to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

Caskey on Proportionality and the New Ontario Discovery Rules

Amendments to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect on January 1st, 2010. Since January 1, 2010 Wortzman Nickle has been busy attending Meet and Confer sessions with our clients and advising them on discovery plans. 

Most importantly, Ontario has now formally adopted the principle of “Proportionality” and if all goes as planned, the culture of litigation in Ontario will be changing as well. 

The new Ontario Rules adopt the Sedona Canada Principles and require the parties to agree upon a “Discovery Plan” (Rule 29.1.03) which includes the scope of discovery, timing for delivery of each party’s affidavit of documents, information with respect to the costs and manner for production, names of the persons who will be produced  and any other information that will facilitate an expeditious, cost–effective discovery and ensure that the process is “proportionate” to the importance and complexity of the action. 

Rule 1.04(1.1) will give judges the mandate to “make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved”. The new Rules further entrench “Proportionality” into the discovery process by providing the court with guidelines to consider when deciding whether a party must answer a question or produce a document (Rules 29.2.03): 

The Supreme Court of Canada recently considered the principle of proportionality in Marcotte v. Longueil (City), 2009 SCC 43 (CanLII). Although the decision deals with a class action case in Quebec, the majority of the Court affirmed that the principle of proportionality confers a real power on the courts, and is not just limited to a principle of interpretation. The Supreme Court further held that proportionality is a valuable source of the courts’ power to intervene in case management to ensure that the litigation is consistent with the principles of good faith and balance between litigants.  

The courts have always had the discretion to either expand or restrict discovery and production. (See the recent decision of Justice Cullity in Pearson v. Inco Limited, 2009 CanLII 37928 (On S.C.).) The new Ontario Rules, however, charge the courts with a more active role. 

Lawyers beware – the days of the “document dump” are over. Similarly, the days of making unreasonable production requests are over. The new Ontario Rules require counsel to co-operate and work together to come up with a Discovery Plan.  If they are unable to do so, the courts will intervene and apply the principle of proportionality in order to ensure that actions are not extended for years unnecessarily thereby increasing costs astronomically.  

If you require assistance with your Discovery Plan, contact Wortzman Nickle.