Law Office of
Chris Stewart, P.C.

301 S. Polk, Suite 700
Amarillo, Texas. 79101

direct: 806.322.1251
fax: 806.322.1252
email us

Attorney Chris Stewart

In our electronic evidence and discovery law practice, we do the following:

  • Advise clients on their obligations to preserve and produce electronic evidence;
  • Assist other lawyers and law firms on electronic discovery issues;
  • Actively pursue production of electronic evidence in matters we litigate;
  • Defendant against unreasonable attempts to secure electronic evidence

Today more than 90% of all information is created in an electronic format.  A single CD-ROM can hold around 55,000 pages of documents.  While sixty-nine percent of businesses face at least one litigation hold each year, just thirty-seven percent have a formal litigation process in place.  One in five businesses has settled a lawsuit to avoid the cost of recovering and searching through e-mail.  Even a smaller business with less than average computer storage may have storage capacity equivalent to 2,000 four-drawer file cabinets. 

The vast amount of electronic data has dramatically changed the discovery process.  More and more companies have a written document management policy that covers both paper and electronic evidence.  Electronic evidence can be found in many formats, including e-mail, web pages, word processing files, audio and video files, images, computer databases; and devices including servers, desktops, laptops, cell phones, hard drives, flash drives, PDAs and MP3 players.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective December 1, 2006, to more completely address electronic discovery.  Electronic evidence may be the subject of a discovery request.  A party is not required to provide electronic evidence from sources that “the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.”  Even if the party from whom the discovery is sought proves undue burden or cost, the court can still order the discovery if the requesting party shows “good cause.”  The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if the discovery is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or obtainable from another source or “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”

The State of Texas was the first state to enact formal e-discovery rules.  The Texas rules provide that:

To obtain discovery of data or information that exists in electronic or magnetic form, the requesting party must specifically request production of electronic data and specify the form in which the requesting party wants it produced.  The responding party must produce the electronic or magnetic data that is responsive to the request and is reasonably available to the responding party in its ordinary course of business.  If the responding party cannot – through reasonable efforts – retrieve the data or information requested or produce it in the form requested, the responding party must state an objection complying with these rules.  If the court orders the responding party to comply with the request, the court must also order that the requesting party pay the reasonable expenses of any extraordinary steps required to retrieve and produce the information.

Simply put, to obtain evidence in electronic format, the requesting party must specifically ask for it and state how the material should be produced in the request.  To object to a discovery request, the Texas rules require the responding party to make a timely objection in writing and state specifically the legal or factual basis for the objection and the extent to which the party is refusing to comply with the request.

Publications:

  • Locating Companies for Due Diligence and Background Information, Find It Free and Fast on the Net:  Strategies for Legal Research on the Web(National Business Institute Seminar), Amarillo, Texas, October 27, 2008
  • Intellectual Property and Internet Law for Businesses, Process Equipment Manufacturers’ Association Annual Meeting, Tucson, Arizona, February 28-March 4, 2007

Speeches:

  • Confidentiality and Privacy Issues in the Workplace
    Employment Law Update in Texas
    Amarillo, Texas, March 12, 2008
  • Intellectual Property and Internet Law for Businesses
  • Process Equipment Manufacturers’ Association Annual Meeting
       Tucson, Arizona, February 28-March 4, 2007

© 2008 Law Office of Chris Stewart, P.C.  All rights reserved.