Proportionality is a major issue in e-discovery cases these days.
A recent article by David J. Lender, Partner at Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP and the Hon. Andrew J. Peck, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York , says it
best:
" ... in order to make litigation more affordable and focused the entire paradigm
of discovery needs to change. Litigants and courts should
approach discovery differently depending on what is at stake
in the case, and how complex the issues are expected to be.
There simply is no reason in most cases to produce thousands
upon thousands of documents from dozens of custodians, simply
because they have touched an issue, when the dispute really
centers around a handful of key players who will have most
(albeit not all) of the documents that are potentially relevant to the
case."
But do we have the tools to make proportionality a reality?
Last year Craig Ball explored what tools can be used for
e-discovery in a small case with his well received Edna Challenge.
But what about cases that fall between the Edna budget limit of
$1000.00 and Pension COmmittee, a $550 million case arising
out of the liquidation of hedge funds? Are their affordable options
to handle e-discovery in the lower end of that spectrum?
Well to answer that question I drew up the Ernie Challenge, with advise and
editing from Craig Ball and Browning Marean. It's available on its
own blog at www.theerniechallenge.wordpress.com
and we're inviting everyone to weigh in.
The results will be combined and put into an article that I'll also post.
I look forward to all your comments.
