In a recent post I wrote a very brief introduction to e-discovery in Canada. I work closely with e-discovery technologies and trends in the American judicial system and was intrigued by the differences between e-discovery in these national court systems.
I was glad to receive a comment on the post from Canadian e-discovery expert Peg Duncan, who clarified some of my remarks. Peg is one of the people who developed the e-discovery guidelines for the province of Ontario. She is deeply involved in Sedona Conference WG7 (Sedona Canada) as a member of the Steering Committee. Peg wrote that the Judicial Council's practice direction for civil eDiscovery was less concerned with activities like meet-and-confer and more concerned with activities related to production.
"... The judicial guidelines are less about electronic discovery than they are about electronic production - i.e. getting the documents to the other parties and into court in electronic form, whatever format they may have been stored in."
Fair enough. Production -- and presentation too -- are valid e-discovery stages as per the EDRM model. They can also be complex undertakings, and require clear communication and lines of responsibility between parties.
We agreed on Sedona's proportionality principles.Christine Taylor, an analyst with The Taneja Group, has more than a decade of experience in covering the IT and communications industries. She has written extensively on the role of technology in e-discovery, compliance and governance, and information management. View Full Bio