From peruvian guano to electronic records: Canadian E-discovery and records professionals

Archivaria

Volumn 69, Issue , 2010, Pages 49-75

  Force, Donald C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882270550     PISSN: 03186954     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. "The Sedona Conference Glossary: E-Discovery & Digital Information Management, " in The Sedona Conference, 2nd ed. (December 2007).
2. Throughout this article, the terms "preservation" and its verb "preserve" are used in the legal sense, that is, to retain information for the duration of a legal proceeding.
3. A party has a legal right to withhold certain information considered as private, such as communications between the party and its attorney. Such information may be withheld unless the opposing party "can show that (1) the information is directly relevant to the case, and (2) the need for the information outweighs the defendant's need for nondisclosure. " Bryan A. Garner, ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed. (St. Paul, MN, 2010), s.v. "privacy privilege. "
4. For a thorough outline of the discovery process see the "Electronic Discovery Reference Model, " available at http://edrm.net (accessed on 10 January 2010).
5. Paul Matthews and Hodge M. Malek, Discovery (London, 1992), p. 3.
6. Milton Farms Ltd. v. Dow Chemical Canada Inc., [1986] SJ No. 600 (QL), QB No. 2805 of
7. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Apotex Inc., [2003] FCJ No. 1725 (QL) at para. 14, FCA 438.
8. David V. Kenner, "Computerized Litigation Support Systems and the Indigent: Discovery or Disaster, " Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol. 14, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1982), pp. 143-74.
9. David U. Strawn, "Discovering Computerized Records, " American Bar Association Journal, vol. 71, no. 4 (April 1985), pp. 72-74.
10. Cameron G. Shilling, "Electronic Discovery: Litigation Crashes into the Digital Age, " The Labor Lawyer, vol. 22, no. 2 (Fall 2006), p. 209.
11. Cameron G. Shilling, "Electronic Discovery: Litigation Crashes into the Digital Age, " The Labor Lawyer, vol. 22, no. 2 (Fall 2006), p. 209.
12. George L. Paul, Foundations of Digital Evidence (Chicago, 2008), pp. 15-31.
13. In the 2009 Pennsylvania case of Brooks v. Frattaroli, PICS Case No. 09-1709 (CP Lebanon Oct. 5, 2009), Common Pleas Judge Bradford H. Charles stated: "Without question, discovery of ESI can provide unprecedented opportunities for determining truth and preventing fraud... On the other hand, unrestricted access to an opposing party's ESI creates tremendous potential for discovery abuse and invasion of privacy. Somehow, the legal system must develop a balanced approach that uses the truth gathering potential of ESI without abusing a litigant's legitimate expectation of privacy. "
14. Peter Hall, "Pa. Court Weighs in on E-Discovery, " Pennsylvania Law Weekly (19 October 2009), http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434690369&rss=newswire (accessed on 6 January 2010).
15. The Sedona Conference WG [Working Group] 1, "The Sedona Conference Best Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Information Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, " The Sedona Conference Journal 8 (Fall 2007), pp. 189-223.
16. Luciana Duranti and Kenneth Thibodeau, "The Concept of Record in Interactive, Experiential and Dynamic Environments: The View of InterPARES, " Archival Science 6 (2006), pp. 26-33.
17. For an excellent bibliography of monographs, articles, and websites dating back to 1991, see Paul Richert, "Electronic Discovery Bibliography, " Akron Law Review 42 (2009), pp. 419-30.
18. Bradley J. Freedman, "Discovery of Electronic Records Under Canadian Law: A Practical Guide, " Intellectual Property Journal, vol. 18, no. 1 (May 2004), pp. 59-81.
19. Rupert M. Shore, Electronic Evidence: Materials Prepared for the Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Electronic Evidence, held in Vancouver, B.C. on June 1, 2001 (Vancouver, 2001).
20. David Wotherspoon, Electronic Evidence and eDiscovery: Materials Prepared for the Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Electronic Evidence and eDiscovery 2006: The Brave New World, held in Vancouver, B.C. on April 27, 2006 (Vancouver, 2006).
21. Graham J. Underwood, Electronic Evidence: Materials Prepared for the Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Electronic Evidence 2007, held in Vancouver, B.C. on October 5, 2007 (Vancouver, 2007).
22. Adam Kiptak, "U.S. Court is Now Guiding Fewer Nations, " New York Times (18 September 2008), p. A1.
23. Roeske v. Grady, [2006] BCSC 1975.
24. Air Canada v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., [2006] 81 OR (3d) 48 (ONSC), 267 DLR (4th) 483.
25. Zahab v. Salvation Army, [2008] 169 ACWS (3d) 918 (ONSC).
26. Zahab v. Salvation Army, [2008] 169 ACWS (3d) 918 (ONSC).
27. John C. Montaña, "Legal Obstacles to E-Mail Message Destruction, " The ARMA International Educational Foundation (2003).
28. Alan K. Goldstein, "A Short History of Discovery, " Anglo-American Law Review, vol. 10, no. 4 (October/December 1981), pp. 264-65.
29. Gordon D. Cudmore, Choate on Discovery (Scarborough, 1993), p. 1-1.
30. Robert B. White, The Art of Discovery (Aurora, 1990), p. 10.
31. Alan K. Goldstein, "A Short History of Discovery, " Anglo-American Law Review, vol. 10, no. 4 (October/December 1981), pp. 264-65.
32. Paul Matthews and Hodge M. Malek, Discovery (London, 1992), p. 3.
33. Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, c. 66.
34. Paul Matthews and Hodge M. Malek, Discovery (London, 1992), p. 3.
35. Paul Matthews and Hodge M. Malek, Discovery (London, 1992), p. 3.
36. Paul Gootbenberg, Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru's "Fictitious Prosperity" of Guano, 1840-1880 (Berkeley, 1993), p. 1.
37. Paul Gootbenberg, Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru's "Fictitious Prosperity" of Guano, 1840-1880 (Berkeley, 1993), p. 1.
38. Paul Gootbenberg, Imagining Development: Economic Ideas in Peru's "Fictitious Prosperity" of Guano, 1840-1880 (Berkeley, 1993), p. 1.
39. Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, c. 77.
40. Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co., [1882], 11 QBD 55 (CA), p. 62.
41. Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co., [1882], 11 QBD 55 (CA), p. 62.
42. See Aird v. Country Park Village Properties (Mainland) Ltd., [2002] FCJ No. 1131 (BC) (QL) at para. 9, 2002 FCT 837.
43. Determining "relevance" has become a contentious issue among the courts. In Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., [1988] FCJ No. 1025 (FCT) (ON) (QL), 25 FTR 226, Justice McNair established a set of guidelines for determining relevance, the first principle being based on the Peruvian Guano ruling. He argued that, "[w]hat documents parties are entitled to is a matter of law, not a matter of discretion. "
44. Determining "relevance" has become a contentious issue among the courts. In Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., [1988] FCJ No. 1025 (FCT) (ON) (QL), 25 FTR 226, Justice McNair established a set of guidelines for determining relevance, the first principle being based on the Peruvian Guano ruling. He argued that, "[w]hat documents parties are entitled to is a matter of law, not a matter of discretion. "
45. Harry Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (London, 1996), p. 167.
46. One of the first Canadian cases involving the discovery of electronically stored information occurred in 1977 in Deveau, Robert Deveau Galleries and International Fine Art Galleries v. the Greater Vancouver Antique Dealers Association et al., [1977] 3 BCLR 196 (BC [In chambers]). In this motion, Robert Deveau, the plaintiff, wanted to view the original tape of an interview conducted by British Columbia Television System (BCTV) in which slanderous remarks were made and subsequently broadcast. It was determined that a faithful copy of the tape would suffice instead of Deveau's watching the original tape at the television station.
47. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, [1982] BCJ No. 1599 (SC [In chambers]) (QL) at para. 23-24, 134 DLR (3d) 154.
48. According to the Canadian Case Citations, this case has been followed in only four other cases (though it has been considered in a number of other cases).
49. Federal Court Act, SOR/98-106, s. 222.
50. Bradley J. Freedman, "Discovery of Electronic Records Under Canadian Law: A Practical Guide, " Intellectual Property Journal, vol. 18, no. 1 (May 2004), pp. 59-81.
51. Northwest Mettech Corp. v. Metcon Services Ltd., [1996] BCJ No. 1915 (SC [In chambers]) (QL) determined that a hard drive is not a document but a medium on which documents reside. More recently.
52. See also Andrew M. Mason, "Throwing Out the (Electronic) Trash: True Deletion would Soothe E-Discovery Woes, " Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2 (May 2006), pp. 777-95.
53. Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] FC 69 (AB).
54. Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, [1992] 3 FC 155 (FCT) (BC).
55. Sycor Technology Inc. v. Kiaer, [2005] 144 ACWS (3d) 229 (ONSC).
56. At the time this article was written, there have been no reported cases in Canada involving the discoverability of text messages, though there have been a number of cases where text messages have been used in court as evidence. For example, see: Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Husseinian, [2008] BCSC 241.
57. Murphy v. Perger, [2007] OJ No. 5511 (SCJ); Kent v. Laverdière, [2009] OJ No. 1522 (SCJ); and Leduc v. Roman, [2009] OJ No. 681 (SCJ).
58. Mantua Books, Division of Senberg Management Ltd. v. Indigo Books & Music Inc., [2008] OJ No. 3332 (SCJ).
59. At the time this article was written, there have been no published cases involving the discovery of Twitter messages, though it is accepted that they are a discoverable technology. See Martha A. Mazzone, "The New E-Discovery Frontier: Seeking Facts in the Web 2.0 World (and other Miscellany), " Boston Bar Journal 53 (January/February 2009), pp. 8-11.
60. Harry Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (London, 1996), p. 167.
61. Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Final Report on the Joint Project of the American College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (Irvine, 2009), p. 2, http://www.actl.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4053 (accessed on 18 January 2010).
62. "Judicial Conference Adopts Rule Changes, Confronts Projected Budget Shortfalls, " The Third Branch: Newsletter of the Federal Courts, vol. 31, no. 10 (October 1999), http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/oct99ttb/october1999.html (accessed on 28 July 2009).
63. Andrew Conry-Murray, "Ease The Pain of E-Discovery, " InformationWeek (1 June 2009), http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/legal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217700666 (accessed on 24 July 2009).
64. Doucet v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc., [2007] NBJ No. 254 (QL), 2007 NBQB 245. This is also a classic example of the extended duration caused by the discovery process, which had been ongoing for three years and it had yet to move beyond the discovery stage.
65. Middelkamp v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, [1992] BCJ No. 1947 (CA) (QL) at para. 18, 96 DLR (4th) 227.
66. Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region, [2008] AJ No. 615 (QL) at para. 23, 2008 ABCA 219.
67. Cameron G. Shilling, "Electronic Discovery: Litigation Crashes into the Digital Age, " The Labor Lawyer, vol. 22, no. 2 (Fall 2006), p. 209.
68. Susan Wortzman and Susan Nickle, "The Costs of E-Discovery: Traditional Rules May Not Apply, " in E-Discovery in Canada, p. 87.
69. Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968, 2009, s. 601(1).
70. Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968, 2009, s. 601(1).
71. Katherine Reilly, "Dramatic Changes on the Horizon for B.C.'s Civil Procedure Rules" (24 February 2009), http://www.langmichener.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.contentDetail&ID=10465&tID=244 (accessed on 8 January 2010).
72. Stan Rule, "New Civil Procedure Rules in British Columbia, Effective July 1, 2010" (7 July 2009), http://rulelaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-civil-procedure-rules-in-british.html(accessed on 8 January 2010).
73. Anderson Preece Associates Inc. v. Dominion Appraisal Group Inc. et al., [2000] AJ No. 459 (QL) at para. 4, 2000 ABQB 254.
74. Walter Construction (Canada) Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, [2003] BCJ No. 2389 (QL) at para. 18, 2003 BCSC 1582.
75. Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, 2009, sections 16.13(1) and 16.13(2).
76. Bawas Gas Bars Ltd. v. Kiosses, [1998] OJ No. 5450 (SCJ) (QL) at para. 35, 83 OTC 241.
77. Lloyd S. van Oostenrijk, "Paper or Plastic?: Electronic Discovery and Spoliation in the Digital Age, " Houston Law Review, vol. 42, no. 4 (2005), pp. 1163-1203.
78. Ann McLean, "Report on Spoliation of Evidence, " British Columbia Law Institute Report No. 34 (November 2004), p. 3.
79. Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co., [2000] FCJ No. 1535 (ON) (QL) at para. 9, 100 ACWS (3d) 327 ("Courts may impose sanctions where there is a failure to comply with the obligations imposed by the Rules of discovery").
80. Spar Aerospace Limited v. Aerowerks Engineering Inc., 2007 ABQB 543.
81. According to a report done by an American law firm Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, "fees and costs are the most common form of sanctions" in discovery cases; see "2009 Mid-Year Update on E-Discovery Cases" (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2009), http://www.gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/2009Mid-YearUpdateonE-DiscoveryCases.aspx#1st (accessed on 8 January 2010).
82. Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (2004), s.v. "adverse inference. "
83. McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada, Inc., [2008] AJ No. 1182 (QL) at para.
84. See also Todd J. Burke and Glenn Smith, "A Survey of E-Discovery Case Law in Canada, " in E-Discovery in Canada, pp. 23-27.
85. St. Louis v. Canada, [1896] SCJ No. 5, 25 SCR 649.
86. Subsequent rulings have parsed this rule into two parts: the need to determine if the information has been destroyed, and if it was relevant to the proceedings (Dyk v. Protec Automotive Repairs, [1997] 151 DLR (4th) 374 (BCSC), [1998] 5 WWR 297).
87. Trans North Turbo Air Ltd. v. North 60 Petro Ltd., [2003] YJ No. 47 (QL) at para. 78, YKSC 18.
88. McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada, Inc., [2008] ABCA 353 and R. v. La, [1997] 2 SCR 680, 148 DLR (4th) 608.
89. R.A.R.B. v. British Columbia, [2001] BCSC 917.
90. Jennifer A. Mohan, "Origin and Development of Records Scheduling in North America" (Master's thesis, University of British Columbia, 1994), p. 1.
91. Graham J. Underwood, Electronic Evidence: Materials Prepared for the Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Electronic Evidence 2007, held in Vancouver, B.C. on October 5, 2007 (Vancouver, 2007).
92. Michael R. Arkfeld, Electronic Discovery and Evidence (Phoenix, 2006), p. 6.
93. Glaxo Smithkline Inc. v. Canada, [2002] TCJ No. 528 (ON) (QL) at para. 6, [2003] 1 CTC 2258.
94. See also Todd J. Burke and Glenn Smith, "A Survey of E-Discovery Case Law in Canada, " in E-Discovery in Canada, pp. 23-27.
95. Ontario v. Johnson Controls Ltd., [2002] OJ No. 4725 (SCJ) (QL) at para. 51, OTC 950.
96. Criminal law uses slightly different terminology for the discovery process using the term "disclosure" rather than "discovery. "
97. Dawes v. Jajcaj, [1999] BCJ No. 845 (QL) at para. 69, BCCA 237.
98. R. v. La, [1997] 2 SCR 680.
99. Murphy Battista v. McGivern, [2007] BCSC 1172.
100. Murphy Battista v. McGivern, [2007] BCSC 1172.
101. Murphy Battista v. McGivern, [2007] BCSC 1172.
102. R. v. Sivasubramaniya, [2002] OJ No. 195 (SCJ) (QL) at para. 44-45, 92 CRR (2d) 130.
103. See also Todd J. Burke and Glenn Smith, "A Survey of E-Discovery Case Law in Canada, " in E-Discovery in Canada, pp. 23-27.
104. See also Todd J. Burke and Glenn Smith, "A Survey of E-Discovery Case Law in Canada, " in E-Discovery in Canada, pp. 23-27.
105. In Phillip M. Adams & Associates v. Dell Inc., [2009] WL 910801 (D. Utah March 30, 2009), the defendant argued that certain documents did not exist because they had been destroyed according to the company's retention and disposition policies. The judge dismissed this position because the defendant "lacked statements from management-level persons explaining its practices, or existence of any policies" (at *15). obliv
106. Paul G. Lannon, Jr., "The Duty to Preserve Electronic Evidence: When it is Triggered and How to Satisfy It, " Boston Bar Journal 51 (March/April 2007), pp. 13-14.
107. Trans North Turbo Air Ltd. v. North 60 Petro Ltd., [2003] YJ No. 47 (QL) at para. 78.
108. See Reilly, "Dramatic Changes on the Horizon. " Also, in 2005 the Task Force on the Discovery Process in Ontario released its "Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronic Documents in Ontario" (October 2005) providing guidance for parties and their counsel for meeting e-discovery requirements.
109. The Sedona Conference is "an institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights, " http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ (accessed on 8 November 2009).
110. In January 2008, the Sedona Conference Working Group 7, Sedona Canada, released its first publication: "The Sedona Canada Principles: Addressing Electronic Discovery, " The Sedona Conference (January 2008).
111. So far, these principles have been cited in two Canadian cases: Vector Transportation Services Inc. v. Traffic Tech Inc., [2008] 165 ACWS (3d) 803 (ONSC), 58 CPC (6th) 364
112. Commonwealth Marketing Group Ltd. v. Manitoba Securities Commission, [2008] MBQB 319.
113. Bishop (Litigation guardian of) v. Minichiello, [2009] BCSC 358.