http://ow.ly/6Pp4H
An article by H. Christopher Boehning and Daniel J. Toal published by the New York Law Journal and appearing on law.com on the LTN webpage.
This article discusses the treatment of government entities, and how certain precedent cases hold them to the same standards as a private civil litigant when it comes to eDiscovery obligations.
The authors state, "...a recent opinion by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia -- DL v. District of Columbia -- appears to confirm that public litigants can expect to be held to the same exacting standards as everyone else."
The authors point out, "...(Judge) Lamberth declined to reconsider a sanctions order in which he had not only directed the District to produce e-mails it had yet made available to the other side, but also decided that the District had waived all objections to production, including those based on attorney-client privilege."
The article describes why the District was sanctioned, and the various ways in which the conduct of the district was inappropriate (including the failure to seek an extension). The author's also state that the court felt the only other sanction would be default, and it did not wish to take that action. In addition, the court wanted to ensure that future litigants comply with court order's regarding discovery obligations, hence a serious sanction was merited.
As the author's go on to state, "Far from giving the District special treatment or holding it to a lower standard because of its status as a government entity, the court treated the District no differently than any other litigant. Lambert's decision teaches that governmental entities should expect no indulgence from courts simply because they are public, rather than private, parties. Governmental entities therefore will have to take their discovery obligations every bit as seriously as private parties."
0 comments:
Post a Comment