Electronic Evidence in U.S. Civil Procedure

This paper analyses handling electronic evidence, or electronically stored information (ESI), in U.S. civil procedure. The author describes the principal stages of e-discovery: identification, preservation, processing, reviewing, and data transferring. The paper substantiates critical role of litigation holds and metadata in ensuring the authenticity and integrity of evidence. It demonstrates that a failure to comply with ESI preservation obligations may result in serious procedural sanctions. Particular attention is devoted to technology-assisted review (TAR) that has transformed document-review practices. The author examines both its efficiency and its susceptibility to manipulation, including through modifications to the training dataset. It is noted that the use of TAR requires lawyers to possess substantial technical expertise and gives rise to disputes concerning the disclosure of algorithms. The paper emphasizes the need for the parties to reach prior agreement on ESI-production formats and the protection of confidential information. It critically assesses the high cost of e-discovery and identifies risks associated with unequal access to relevant technologies. The analysis of U.S. practice reveals both the potential and the limitations of digital evidentiary tools and may serve as a reference point for reforming analogous procedures in Russian civil procedure.

1. Abesadze SA, Andreeva TK, Anurov VN, et al. Lunaeva TA, Skvortsov OYu, Savransky MYu, Sevastyanov GV. International Commercial Arbitration. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Editorial office of the journal «Arbitration Court». Moscow: Statute Publ.; Issue 9; 2018. (In Russ.).

2. Abushenko DB, Alieskerov MA, Andreeva TK, et al. Molchanov VV (ed.). Russian proceduralists on law, law and judicial practice: On the 20th Anniversary of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2023. (In Russ.).

3. Alekseeva NV, Bagylli ST, Belyakova AV, et al. Zhuikov VM, Zavriev SS (eds.). Problems of implementing the principles of civil proceedings in law enforcement. Moscow: Norma, Infra-M Publ.; 2024. (In Russ.).

4. Bassett DL. Reasonableness in E-Discovery. Campbell Law Review. 2010;32(3):435-454. (In Russ.).

5. Beisner JH. Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform. Duke Law Journal. 2010;60(3):547-582.

6. Concannon JB. Disclosing Machine Inputs and Outputs: The Vulnerability of Legal Technology in Civil Discovery. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 2023;21(1):140-142.

7. Delgado F, Barocas S, Levy K. An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2022;6(CSCW1):51:1-51:22.

8. Garrie DB, Gelb DK. An Argument for Uniform E-Discovery Practice in Cross-Border Civil Litigation. Journal of Business & Technology Law. 2012;7(2):341-372.

9. Guha N, Henderson P, Zambrano DA. Gamesmanship in Modern Discovery Tech. In: Engstrom DF (ed.). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023. P. 120–126. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4227400.

10. Guha N, Henderson P, Zambrano DA. Vulnerabilities in Discovery Tech. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 2022;35(2):626-632.

11. Harte GH. Electronic Discovery in Civil Litigation: Avoiding Surprises in Cost Shifting Decisions. Seton Hall Circuit Review. 2016;12(2):272-300.

12. Knyazev DV. Payment for legal services in the USA civil procedure: Contingent fee, American rule and their impact on the judicial caseload. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law. 2021;3:693-711. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2021.313.

13. Kourlis RL et al. Navigating the Hazards of E-Discovery: A Manual for Judges in State Courts Across the Nation. 2nd ed. Denver: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, University of Denver; 2012.

14. Matthewman W. Towards a New Paradigm for E-Discovery in Civil Litigation: A Judicial Perspective. Florida Law Review. 2020;71(5):1263-1290.

15. Nosyreva EI, Lukyanova IN, Filchenko DG (eds.). Essays on the modern civil process: In Memoriam, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Law, Professor Tamara Evgenievna Abova. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2023. (In Russ.).

16. Ong JM. Another Step in the Evolution of E-Discovery: Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Yet Again? Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law. 2012;18:174-198.

17. O'Shea TM, Stroebel SB, Banker PA, Birnbaum R. Using Legal Holds for Electronic Discovery. William Mitchell Law Review. 2014;40(2):464-498.

18. Rispoli SL et al. When to Leave the Stones Unturned: Using Proportionality to Navigate Discovery Efficiently, Effectively, and Ethically. Marquette Law Review. 2023;107(2):495-528.

19. Rosenberg Z. Returning to Plato's Cave: Metadata's Shadows in the Courtroom. Arizona State Law Journal. 2016;48(4):446-480.

20. Sanders K. What Is Technology-Assisted Review? (TAR). The National Law Review. 2022;May 19. Available at: https://natlawreview.com/article/what-technology-assisted-review-tar.

21. Streich G. Court Mandated Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery: Changes in Proportionality, Cost-Shifting, and Spoliation. Fordham Law Review Online. 2021;90(1):140-154.

22. Tennis BT. Cost-Shifting in Electronic Discovery. Yale Law Journal. 2010;119(6):1303-1320.

23. Yaroshenko TV. The legal nature of electronic evidence in civil proceedings: some problematic issues. Russian Judge. 2022;9:9-13. (In Russ.).

24. Young M. To Cure the E-Discovery Headache, Revamp the Rule 26(f) Discovery Conference. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 2014;12(4):370-387.