Illinois Adopts e-Discovery Rule - Part IV

[1] George (“Geo”) Bellas has been a panelist at the Sedona Conference, is a member of the 7^th Circuit e-Discovery Committee and was a recipient of ATLA’s Steven Sharp Award for his contributions in educating the public on the recall of the Ford Explorer. He is the senior partner in the suburban Chicago firm of Bellas & Wachowski Attorneys at Law.

Amanda Lueth is a May 2014 graduate from Northern Illinois College of Law. She was an Assistant Editor for NIU’s Law Review Committee and a researching/writing graduate assistant.

[2] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg , LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D. New York) (May, 13, 2013); See also, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D. New York) (July 24, 2003); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D.212 (S.D. New York) (October 22, 2003); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D. New York) (July 20, 2004); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 382 F.Supp.2d 536 (S.D. New York) (March 16, 2005).

[3] Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company , 241 F.R.D. 534 (D.Md. May 4, 2007).

[4] The Basics: What is E-Discovery? CDS Complete Discovery; available here (last visited September 15, 2014).

[5] Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

[6] Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (Committee Note 2006).

[7] Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(b)(4).

[8] Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(c)(3).

[9] See id. (Committee Comment, May 29, 2014).

[10] Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 214(b).

[11] Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(p) (Committee Comment, May 29, 2014).

[12] First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase , 2013 WL 7800409 at *1(E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2013).

[13] See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC , 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D. New York) (May, 13, 2013); See also, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D. New York) (July 24, 2003); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D.212 (S.D. New York) (October 22, 2003); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D. New York) (July 20, 2004); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 382 F.Supp.2d 536 (S.D. New York) (March 16, 2005).

[14] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC , 217 F.R.D. 309, 317 (S.D. New York) (May, 13, 2013).

[15] Id. at 317.

[16] Id. at 317-318.

[17] Id. at 318.

[18] Id. at 319.

[19] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC , 217 F.R.D. 309, 320 (S.D. New York) (May, 13, 2013).

[20] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c).

[21] “Proportionality” Under the Federal Rules: An Overview”, Ronald J. Hedges (2011) (available here).

[22] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC , 217 F.R.D. 309, 323 (S.D. New York) (May, 13, 2013).

[23] Cochran v. Caldera Medical, Inc. (E.D. Pennsylvania, April 22, 2014).

[24] Cochran v. Caldera Medical, Inc. , at 3 (E.D. Pennsylvania, April 22, 2014).

[25] See Zubulake v. USB Warburg, LLC. , 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D. New York, 2004).

[26] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A).

[27] Inside Counsel. “Litigation: Sanctions for spoliation of evidence – Understanding how courts determine the appropriate spoliation sanction to impose is essential.” Margaret Koesel, Tracey Turnbull. (July 18, 2013)

[28] See Zubulake v. USB Warburg, LLC. , 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D. New York, 2004).

[29] Id. at 423.

[30] Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 219(c).

[31] See id.

[32] See Discovery Pilot: Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery. (last visited September 18, 2014).

[33] See id.

[34] See Principle 1.01 (“Purpose”) (last visited September 19, 2014).

[35] See Principle 1.02 (“Cooperation”) (last visited September 19, 2014).

[36] See Tamburino v. Dworkin (N.D. Illinois, Nov. 17, 2010); see also Krentz v. Carew Trucking, Inc., 2014 WL 2110022 at *1 (E.D. Wisconsin, May 20, 2014).

[37] See Principle 2.04 (“Scope of Preservation”) (last visited September 17, 2014).

[38] See id.

[39] See Principle 2.01 (“Duty to Meet and Confer on Discovery and to Identify Disputes for Early Resolution) (last visited September 17, 2014).

[40] Tardanico, Susan. “Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?” Forbes Magazine. (available here ) (last visited September 19, 2014).

[41] Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC , 229 F.R.D. 422, 424 (S.D. New York) (July 20, 2004).

[42] See Principle 2.05 (“Identification of Electronically Stored Information”); see also Principle 2.06 (“Production Format”) (last visited on September 17, 2014).

[43] See id.

[44] See Principle 2.03 (“Preservation Requests and Orders”) (last visited September 17, 2014).

[45] Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

[46] Judge’s Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery . Anne Kershaw & Joe Howie, quoting Hon. James C. Francis IV. Version 1.0: An Electronic Discovery Institute Publication.

[47] Judge’s Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery . Anne Kershaw & Joe Howie, quoting Hon. James C. Francis IV. Version 1.0: An Electronic Discovery Institute Publication at 19.

[48] Id. at 19 (“Consolidating duplicates permits faster reviews and reduces the risk that the same records are treated inconsistently. Consolidating duplicates is a basic way of controlling the escalating costs of discovery and litigation.”).

[49] Id. at 20, FN 16.

[50] Judge’s Guide to Cost-Effective E-Discovery . Anne Kershaw & Joe Howie, quoting Hon. James C. Francis IV. Version 1.0: An Electronic Discovery Institute Publication.

[51] Fed. R. Evid. 901.

[52] See Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company , 241 F.R.D. 534 (D.Md. May 4, 2007).

[53] See id.

[54] See id. at 537.

[55] See Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company , 241 F.R.D. 534 (D.Md. May 4, 2007).

[56] See id.

[57] See id. at 538.

[58] See id at 552.

[59] See id. at 553.

[60] Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Company , 241 F.R.D. 534,554 (D.Md. May 4, 2007).