CategoriesCivil ProcedureFlorida Law Review Forum
Response to William Matthewman, Towards a New Paradigm for E-Discovery in Civil Litigation: A Judicial Perspective
We need more judges like my friend Judge William “Bill” Matthewman, who are willing to reflect on eDiscovery, not as a nuisance to be avoided, but in a thoughtful manner to advance the aims of Rule 1, for a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of civil litigation. For twenty-three years I served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of New York and frequently spoke at Bar and eDiscovery conferences all over the country (indeed, all over the world). Judge Matthewman and I overlapped at a few of these conferences and generally had similar views on handling eDiscovery matters. I applaud his ten “Core Components of the New E-Discovery Paradigm,” but I bring an additional point of view to the subject. Since retiring from the court in February 2018, I returned to being a litigator, joining the international law firm of DLA Piper as Senior Counsel in their New York City office, which gives me a slightly different perspective on the core components. My conclusion is that the most important core component is very active judicial supervision of discovery. So, I generally agree with Judge Matthewman, but I have some further thoughts on the ten core components.