Enterprise Search Sourcebook 2008

was instrumental in crafting The Sedona Principles. Baron has worked in the government for 27 years, so he knows how arduous the discovery process can be. “I’ve worked in the Justice Department in an era of predominantly paper records. There used to be thousands of boxes to go through, and you had to throw a lot of lawyers at the project,” he says. “But now we’re in an era where things have changed. Now you have to be employing a lot of automated tools and methods. And the rules have had to change along with the methods, which is where The Sedona Principles and the revised Federal Rules come in.” Before the revised Federal Rules came into being, the process of dealing with electronic information during discovery was somewhat murky. Prudence Zalewski describes a legal landscape where guidelines and procedures were catch-as-catch-can. effect, attorneys would ask for e-data, but there would be resistance from the opposing side,” she says.“Since there were no rules in place, the case could be made that electronic information didn’t have to be produced according to the same standards as non-electronic information. But judges always had the final say in what did and did not have to be produced during the discovery process. There used to be a little more wiggle room. Decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, and attorneys who made good arguments were sometimes able to convince judges to leave certain information off the table. Now, the new Federal Rules establish a standard by which everyone knows they have to play.” Zalewski is quick to point out that the major changes to the Federal Rules that went into effect on Dec. 1, 2006, only apply to federal cases … for now. “The Federal Rules are beginning to filter down and influence the state courts,” she says. “California recently instituted new rules for electronic discovery that comply with the federal rules.” The revisions to the Federal Rules were largely derived from the work of an independent think tank in the Arizona desert called The Sedona Conference. The conference’s mission was to “allow leading jurists, lawyers, experts, academics … to come together—in conferences and mini-think tanks—and engage in the true dialogue, not debate, all in an effort to move the law forward in a reasoned and just way.” In 2004, the Electronic Document Retention and Production working group of the conference, whose charge was to develop principles and best practices on the subject, released The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, which sought to bring order to the chaos that was e-discovery. Jason Baron, director of litigation for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), has been a major player in the working group for nearly a decade and Making Sense of the Federal Rules Zalewski’s practice focuses on directing her clients toward those search mechanisms that they might need in order to comply with the Federal Rules. “Organizations are so much better off when they have software and procedures in place before they need them. Then they’re not struggling to get their hands around data when they’re suddenly required to, and they’re able to do it on the short notice that the federal rules enforce. If you anticipate litigation, and you know that you’ll have to produce certain documents, and you know all the rules, the process will be simple. If you’re caught off guard, or you aren’t as knowledgeable about e-discovery regulations as you should be, you’ll be caught in a tail spin.” Rule 16(b) and the Other Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In addition to Rule 16(b), which establishes a schedule for creating an e-discovery plan, the changes in the Federal Rules that Zalewski advises her clients to be aware of include the following: Rule 26(a): Defines electronically stored information (ESI) as its own category Rule 26(b)(2): Defines accessible and inaccessible data Rule 26(b)(2): Clarifies procedures on privileged ESI and retrieval of that information Rule 26(f): Describes “meet and confer” protocol, which requires all parties to agree on the form of the discovery process prior to the implementation of the plan Rule 33(d): Includes ESI in responding to interrogatories by providing access to systems Rule 34(b): Establishes protocols for how e-documents are produced Rule 37(f): Provides “safe harbor” for when ESI is lost or unobtainable Rule 45: Subpoenas now include ESI WWW.ENTERPRISESEARCHCENTER.COM 49 http://WWW.ENTERPRISESEARCHCENTER.COM

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Enterprise Search Sourcebook 2008

Enterprise Search Sourcebook 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Publisher’s Note Findings and Figures Why Enterprise Search Will Never Be Google-y Searching for Search Usability Your Users Are Talking to You What’s Your Search Story? Search Is Dead—Now What? Delivering on the Promise of Enterprise Search Taming Multiple Search Engines in Your Organization Enterprise Search: Trends for 2008 Enterprise Search Seen From the Inside Open Source Search: Elixir or Poison? Avoiding the Big Mistakes in Search Semantic Search Takes Root in the Enterprise E-Discovery Essentials: The Rules You Need to Know SharePoint Search: An Enterprise Contender? Integrating Security Into Your Enterprise Search Infrastructure Engineering a Better Search Infrastructure Letting End Users Ask the Questions, Stat! The Power of Knowledge Legal Research Using Enterprise Search: A Developer’s View From Treading Water to Full Steam Ahead Pulling Out All the Stops With Midas A Natural Search Solution An Incremental Approach to Improving Enterprise Search The Enterprise Search Sourcebook Showcase Directory Index to Advertisers and Companies Mentioned

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.