EDRM Privilege Log Survey Results: eDiscovery Trends

I’m on day 3 of internet woes (don’t get me started!), but thanks to my mother-in-law Hilda for the use of hers, the blog marches on!  Missed this a few days ago when it was published but the EDRM Privilege Log survey results (launched late last month) are now available!

EDRM was able to get 115 responses to the survey (in 48 hours, no less!) and here are a few highlights of the Privilege Log survey results:

  • Breakdown of respondents is as follows: Large law firm (100+ lawyers) 53 respondents; Medium firm (10-99 lawyers) 10; Small firm or solo practice (9 or less) 6; In-house legal department 8; Alternative legal services provider or consultant 24; Government 4; Other organization 1055 out of 115 respondents were attorneys, the remaining 60 were other legal professionals.  Nearly all of the respondents (110) were US-based, which makes sense since this discussion centers around FRCP 26(b)(5)(A).
  • Representation: 57 of respondents primarily represent producing parties, 51 represent both about equally and only 7 primarily represent requesting parties.  A strong majority (over 75%) represent primarily business entities (87), while only 6 represent primarily individuals; the rest (22) represent both about equally.
  • Believe that the language of FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) can be improved: Not surprisingly, a strong majority (over 69%, or 80 respondents) said “Yes”, nearly 28% (32) said “Not Sure” and only 2.61% (3) said “No”.  Would most people feel compelled to complete the survey if they didn’t think the rule needed improvement?  Probably not.

EDRM also published the comments submitted by Cristin Traylor, Project Trustee of the EDRM Privilege Log Project, who submitted it in response to a request for comments to the Discovery Subcommittee of The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, on whether to change FRCP 26(b)(5)(A).  Those comments included a zip file which contained the EDRM Streamlined Privilege Protocol (covered by me and available here) and the EDRM Privilege Log survey results (available for download from here), as well as a brief summary paragraph of the survey results with additional highlights.  Check it out!

ProSearch

So, what do you think?  Are you surprised by any of the findings in the EDRM Privilege Log survey results?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Leave a Reply