It is 2013, yet the term "e-discovery" is still
considered a dirty word in some circles. Imagine that, we can
use technology to check in on Facebook or send a Tweet from a smart
phone in just about any corner of the globe, but when it comes time
to litigate issues that invoke the dreaded "e word,"
litigants and even judges become bewildered, shuttering at the
thought of garnering the necessary evidence to successfully
prosecute or defend against a claim through the use of
21st century technology. It doesn't have to be
that way.
Most of the resistance to incorporating digital evidence into a
case revolves around cost, and there is no avoiding the fact that
e-discovery comes at a price. One need not look any further
than the recent decision by United States Magistrate Judge Michael
Hammer in Juster Acquisition Co. v. North Hudson Sewerage
Authority, 12-cv-3427, to realize both that e-discovery is a
critical component of litigation, and that it comes at a
price.
