To what Extent do Lawyers need to Supervise Document Disclosure?

Associate

November 8, 2021

In 2020, several US court decisions dealt with lawyers who failed to properly supervise the discovery process, for example by allowing their clients to “self-collect” records (see Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. M1 5100 Corp., Civil No. 19-cv-81320-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN (S.D. Fla. Jul. 2, 2020)) or not taking reasonable effort to ensure that the client produced all required documents (see Optronic Techs. v. Ningbo Sunny Elec. Co., Case No. 16-cv-06370-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2020)).

In the first example, the lawyer received a warning from the judge, but escaped sanctions because the discovery process was not yet complete. … Read More

Discovery in the Yukon

Vladyslav (Vlad) Strashko

Associate

October 20, 2021

A recent decision, Chance Oil and Gas Limited v Yukon (Energy, Mines and Resources), 2021 YKSC 44 (CanLII) , provides a good window into the discovery process in the Yukon.

In this case, both sides filed applications to compel each other to meet their document discovery obligations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant grossly under-produced by listing only 445 documents in its affidavit of documents. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff, in contrast, overproduced by listing over 34,000 documents, some of which were not relevant.

First, the court pointed that the expression “every document relating to any matter in issue in an action” relating to disclosure obligations in Rule 25 of the Rules of Court has been given a broad and liberal interpretation by the courts.… Read More

Courts Continue to Deny Access to Hard Drives in eDiscovery Disputes

Vladyslav (Vlad) Strashko

Associate

September 28, 2021

Earlier this year, two Canadian court decisions came out that considered the same issue: what is required in order to obtain an order requiring production of hard drives and electronic devices.

The first case, Ceballos v. Aviva Insurance et al., 2021 ONSC 4695 (CanLII) came from Ontario. The second case K.K.R. v J.S.R., 2021 BCSC 104 (CanLII) is from British Columbia. While these decisions came from two different provinces, both courts applied consistent legal approaches and analyses:

A computer hard drive is the digital equivalent of a filing cabinet or documentary repository;
The production of the hard drive or filing cabinet is very intrusive as it contains a lot of irrelevant data that may be private and confidential;
The order may be given only in exceptional circumstances where there is evidence that a party is intentionally deleting relevant and material information, or is otherwise deliberately thwarting the discovery process;
Speculation alone that the party is not disclosing or is deleting relevant information is not sufficient;
If the order is granted, the inspection should be done by an expert;
The data needs to be reviewed or vetted for relevance and privilege; and
The general rule regarding proportionality would also apply and the court will consider all other remedies first.

Are Search Terms Producible?

Vladyslav (Vlad) Strashko

Associate

August 12, 2021

The Ontario Superior Court recently had to address an interesting question: “Are the search terms used to identify relevant documents producible?”

In Falsetto v. Salvatore Fillipo Falsetto a.k.a. Sam Falsetto et al., 2021 ONSC 4168 (CanLII), the plaintiff asked the defendant to disclose search terms used to identify documents relevant to the litigation. In making this request the plaintiff relied on Rule 29.1 regarding the parties’ duty to update the discovery plan and the requirement that the parties have regard to the Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery when dealing with the discovery plan. … Read More