Adding to the confusion is a lack of guiding procedural and case law. New methods of discovery have hampered older, traditional attorneys who carry with them the knowledge and experience from the days of paper and pen. The old rules are obsolete, and in today’s world if you can not keep up with the technology and developments in the law then you will be left as ineffectual as the paper and pen you hold in your hand.

In response to the increased demands for structure in E-discovery, the ABA has proposed new Amendments to Civil Discovery Standards relating to the use of E-discovery. In part, these proposed amendments are aimed at providing guidance for evidence retention, destruction and production.

Electronic evidence presents many issues not previously experienced with more traditional forms of evidence. Certain forms of electronic evidence may be misleading and prejudicial to one party or the other, because one piece of evidence may only represent an initial draft of a document, containing information leading to the inference of liability. From a simple printout of electronic evidence, it can be extremely difficult to ascertain whether that evidence is the first or final draft, and whether that evidence has any impact on the dispute. In many ways electronic evidence provides for easier access because there is no need to search through cumbersome boxes of paper, but conducting the actual discovery process may exponentially increase the costs to both the producing and discovering parties.

It takes substantial time to track down trails of information throughout a company’s network. From a plaintiff’s point of view, electronic evidence is difficult to destroy, as it takes an extremely complicated and sophisticated process to completely erase an electronic signature and metadata associated with the files. As demonstrated, electronic evidence may at times be more difficult to find, but conversely, it is also harder to destroy. This juxtaposition of qualities can make a process that appears more concise in theory, to actually become more cumbersome and costly when actually put into practice.

In response to these growing concerns, as part of its proposed amendments, the ABA has focused on E-discovery issues ranging from pre-trial conferences and electronically stored information to a party’s failure to comply with discovery or to cooperate. Unnerving to many plaintiff’s attorneys is proposed Amendment 37(f), which provides that:

"Unless a court order requiring preservation of electronically stored information is violated, the court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party when such information is lost because of the routine operations of its electronic information system if the party took reasonable steps to preserve discoverable information."

This is perhaps the most troublesome (at least for plaintiff’s attorneys), because it effectively creates a safe-harbor for the destruction of electronic evidence. Sanctions would be barred when information is destroyed as a result of routine destruction practices. The rule mentions nothing about what a reasonable destruction practice is or whether a party must freeze those practices once it learns that there is a potential for litigation.

Other important proposed amendments include:

• Rule 33(d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to an interrogatory could produce business records as a substitute for explicitly responding to the interrogatory. Under Amended Rule 33(d), the responding party will be permitted to produce electronic dates and records when responding to interrogatories provided that the requesting party can easily identify and locate the sought after information.
  
• Rule 34(b). The new proposed amendments do not require an attorney to choose a particular evidentiary format when responding to discovery requests, but its mere mention suggests a policy toward favoring electronic evidence. When a requested production format is not specified, the responding party should produce evidence in the manner in which that information is ordinarily maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is reasonably easy to access and use.
  
• Rule 26(b)(5)(B). This amendment addresses the inadvertent production of privileged or protec
  Offpage Optimization: Does Article Marketing Cut the Mustard?
  For those who haven't heard: article marketing is the new offpage optimization strategy that works like magic and won't cost you a dime. What's the strategy? You create an arsenal of short, well-written keyword articles aimed at your target customer and include your URL at the bottom.Submit the articles to a site like EzineArticles.com where they're indexed by category and picked up by other sites to use as content. Soon, your website URL is getting plastered all over the net, and you're working it in new circles thanks to your newfound expertise in your specialized area.As you know, specific criteria must be met in order to boost your SE rank using offpage optimization. So the big question might be: does article marketing pack the muscle to push you up the search engines... or is
  erience from the days of paper and pen. The old rules are obsolete, and in today’s world if you can not keep up with the technology and developments in the law then you will be left as ineffectual as the paper and pen you hold in your hand.

  In response to the increased demands for structure in E-discovery, the ABA has proposed new Amendments to Civil Discovery Standards relating to the use of E-discovery. In part, these proposed amendments are aimed at providing guidance for evidence retention, destruction and production.

  Electronic evidence presents many issues not previously experienced with more traditional forms of evidence. Certain forms of electronic evidence may be misleading and prejudicial to one party or the other, because one piece of evidence may only represent an initial draft of a document, containing information leading to the inference of liability. From a simple printout of electronic evidence, it can be extremely difficult to ascertain whether that evidence is the first or final draft, and whether that evidence has any impact on the dispute. In many ways electronic evidence provides for easier access because there is no need to search through cumbersome boxes of paper, but conducting the actual discovery process may exponentially increase the costs to both the producing and discovering parties.

  It takes substantial time to track down trails of information throughout a company’s network. From a plaintiff’s point of view, electronic evidence is difficult to destroy, as it takes an extremely complicated and sophisticated process to completely erase an electronic signature and metadata associated with the files. As demonstrated, electronic evidence may at times be more difficult to find, but conversely, it is also harder to destroy. This juxtaposition of qualities can make a process that appears more concise in theory, to actually become more cumbersome and costly when actually put into practice.

  In response to these growing concerns, as part of its proposed amendments, the ABA has focused on E-discovery issues ranging from pre-trial conferences and electronically stored information to a party’s failure to comply with discovery or to cooperate. Unnerving to many plaintiff’s attorneys is proposed Amendment 37(f), which provides that:

  "Unless a court order requiring preservation of electronically stored information is violated, the court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party when such information is lost because of the routine operations of its electronic information system if the party took reasonable steps to preserve discoverable information."

  This is perhaps the most troublesome (at least for plaintiff’s attorneys), because it effectively creates a safe-harbor for the destruction of electronic evidence. Sanctions would be barred when information is destroyed as a result of routine destruction practices. The rule mentions nothing about what a reasonable destruction practice is or whether a party must freeze those practices once it learns that there is a potential for litigation.

  Other important proposed amendments include:

  • Rule 33(d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to an interrogatory could produce business records as a substitute for explicitly responding to the interrogatory. Under Amended Rule 33(d), the responding party will be permitted to produce electronic dates and records when responding to interrogatories provided that the requesting party can easily identify and locate the sought after information.
    
  • Rule 34(b). The new proposed amendments do not require an attorney to choose a particular evidentiary format when responding to discovery requests, but its mere mention suggests a policy toward favoring electronic evidence. When a requested production format is not specified, the responding party should produce evidence in the manner in which that information is ordinarily maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is reasonably easy to access and use.
    
  • Rule 26(b)(5)(B). This amendment addresses the inadvertent production of privileged or prote
    Do You Know How to POD?
    In today's Internet age the traditional publisher has a new competitor. It's called Print on Demand, or POD for short.Until recently, aspiring writers found it difficult to have their books approved and into print by established publishers.With POD you become your own publisher, printing and shipping out your books as they are sold. This means no unsold inventory and no lost money while your books are sitting around gathering dust in boxes.Ebooks are pretty popular online but there are still some "old fashioned" consumers who want to hold a book in their hands. POD allows you to offer them that option inexpensively.Unlike traditional publishing, which can cost a small fortune to print hundreds of books (with no guarantee that they'll sell), POD is
    as any impact on the dispute. In many ways electronic evidence provides for easier access because there is no need to search through cumbersome boxes of paper, but conducting the actual discovery process may exponentially increase the costs to both the producing and discovering parties.

    It takes substantial time to track down trails of information throughout a company’s network. From a plaintiff’s point of view, electronic evidence is difficult to destroy, as it takes an extremely complicated and sophisticated process to completely erase an electronic signature and metadata associated with the files. As demonstrated, electronic evidence may at times be more difficult to find, but conversely, it is also harder to destroy. This juxtaposition of qualities can make a process that appears more concise in theory, to actually become more cumbersome and costly when actually put into practice.

    In response to these growing concerns, as part of its proposed amendments, the ABA has focused on E-discovery issues ranging from pre-trial conferences and electronically stored information to a party’s failure to comply with discovery or to cooperate. Unnerving to many plaintiff’s attorneys is proposed Amendment 37(f), which provides that:

    "Unless a court order requiring preservation of electronically stored information is violated, the court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party when such information is lost because of the routine operations of its electronic information system if the party took reasonable steps to preserve discoverable information."

    This is perhaps the most troublesome (at least for plaintiff’s attorneys), because it effectively creates a safe-harbor for the destruction of electronic evidence. Sanctions would be barred when information is destroyed as a result of routine destruction practices. The rule mentions nothing about what a reasonable destruction practice is or whether a party must freeze those practices once it learns that there is a potential for litigation.

    Other important proposed amendments include:

    • Rule 33(d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to an interrogatory could produce business records as a substitute for explicitly responding to the interrogatory. Under Amended Rule 33(d), the responding party will be permitted to produce electronic dates and records when responding to interrogatories provided that the requesting party can easily identify and locate the sought after information.
      
    • Rule 34(b). The new proposed amendments do not require an attorney to choose a particular evidentiary format when responding to discovery requests, but its mere mention suggests a policy toward favoring electronic evidence. When a requested production format is not specified, the responding party should produce evidence in the manner in which that information is ordinarily maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is reasonably easy to access and use.
      
    • Rule 26(b)(5)(B). This amendment addresses the inadvertent production of privileged or prote
      Pixel Sites - Everyone is Jumping on the Band Wagon
      Not a day goes by when I don't get an email or see a site pushing yet another pixel advertising site but are these really a good advertising venue or is everyone just jumping on the band wagon expecting to make a few quick bucks or even get rich.A search on Google for pixel sites gives 22,7000 results. The rage started when a 21 year old from England launched an advertising site where you paid $1 per pixel of advertising and the page was divided into 1,000,000 pixels. The advertising sold out and the guy made a cool million dollars! And get this the last remaining 1000 pixels were sold on ebay for a staggering $38,100!The original site - The Million Dollar Homepage was launched on 26th August 2005. The guy then emailed all his friends and told them to pass on details of
      rences and electronically stored information to a party’s failure to comply with discovery or to cooperate. Unnerving to many plaintiff’s attorneys is proposed Amendment 37(f), which provides that:

      "Unless a court order requiring preservation of electronically stored information is violated, the court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party when such information is lost because of the routine operations of its electronic information system if the party took reasonable steps to preserve discoverable information."

      This is perhaps the most troublesome (at least for plaintiff’s attorneys), because it effectively creates a safe-harbor for the destruction of electronic evidence. Sanctions would be barred when information is destroyed as a result of routine destruction practices. The rule mentions nothing about what a reasonable destruction practice is or whether a party must freeze those practices once it learns that there is a potential for litigation.

      Other important proposed amendments include:

      • Rule 33(d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to an interrogatory could produce business records as a substitute for explicitly responding to the interrogatory. Under Amended Rule 33(d), the responding party will be permitted to produce electronic dates and records when responding to interrogatories provided that the requesting party can easily identify and locate the sought after information.
        
      • Rule 34(b). The new proposed amendments do not require an attorney to choose a particular evidentiary format when responding to discovery requests, but its mere mention suggests a policy toward favoring electronic evidence. When a requested production format is not specified, the responding party should produce evidence in the manner in which that information is ordinarily maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is reasonably easy to access and use.
        
      • Rule 26(b)(5)(B). This amendment addresses the inadvertent production of privileged or prote
        Why Should I Implement Google Sitemaps for My Website?
        What is one major goal of every business owner with a website? I’m sure you can come up with many answers to this question but the one that sticks out in my mind is their goal to increase website traffic. Every business owner should be concerned about how much traffic they are receiving to their website and is most likely thinking about the various ways they can improve on this. Increased traffic equals increased sales - it’s that simple.Now there are many different ways to increase traffic to one’s website and to discuss all of them in this one article would be exhausting. So to keep it short and simple, I’m just going to talk about one of the basic ways to increase traffic and improve your website’s visibility in
        nts include:
        • Rule 33(d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to an interrogatory could produce business records as a substitute for explicitly responding to the interrogatory. Under Amended Rule 33(d), the responding party will be permitted to produce electronic dates and records when responding to interrogatories provided that the requesting party can easily identify and locate the sought after information.
          
        • Rule 34(b). The new proposed amendments do not require an attorney to choose a particular evidentiary format when responding to discovery requests, but its mere mention suggests a policy toward favoring electronic evidence. When a requested production format is not specified, the responding party should produce evidence in the manner in which that information is ordinarily maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is reasonably easy to access and use.
          
        • Rule 26(b)(5)(B). This amendment addresses the inadvertent production of privileged or protected information. This rule will allow a party who unintentionally discloses the privileged information to retrieve it from the accidental receiving party unless that party can prove that they have a right to that information.
          
        • Rule 45. This amendment to Rule 45 would essentially allow parties to subpoena electronically stored information pursuant to any of the other adopted amendments contained in the Rules.

        These are not the only proposed changes, but this brief summary of the proposed amendments is a good demonstration of the increasing preference for electronic discovery. The legal world is changing and those attorneys who are unable to keep up with the changes will be left in the dust. This move by the ABA should serve as a sign to those attorneys frightened by technology and advancements in the law. Electronic discovery is here to stay, unlike those who refuse to welcome the changes to the judicial discovery process.