The US has not hitherto taken very much notice of eDiscovery / eDisclosure developments outside the US, but that is beginning to change. That is partly because of the predictive coding decisions – the Irish Bank Resolution case from Ireland, and the Pyrrho and BCA Trading judgments from England and Wales. There is a growing US interest also in competence when it comes to discovery, and in the incurring of unnecessary costs through failure to cooperate or in the manner of giving discovery.
It is the latter aspect which caught the eye of Patrick Burke of Seyfarth Shaw in an article on his firm’s new and rather good Carpe Datum Law blog. The article is called UK Ministry of Defence Loses Landmark Afghan Veteran Case Due To Sloppy E-Disclosure. He anticipates US interest in Eaglesham’s complaint that:
“[T]he documents were provided in random order, with no explanation as to where they have come from, no explanation of the context in which they were prepared, and no explanation of the acronyms/abbreviations used in them…There has been no attempt by the Defendant to give even a broad range of dates or details of where the undated documents were found or which department they came from.”