It looks like Wisconsin will soon join a number of states (roughly half of the country) who have amended or adopted rules of civil procedure to include specific provisions regarding discovery of electronically stored information.
After considering the issue for several months, the Wisconsin Judicial Council filed a petition with the state Supreme Court proposing amendments to the state statutes that provide the rules of civil procedure.
In general, the proposed amendments are consistent with, and based on the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding electronic discovery. For example, the proposed amendments:
- Encourage the parties to discuss electronically stored information early in the discovery process;
- Address the format in which electronically stored information should be produced;
- Limit the information that must be produced to reasonably accessible information; and
- Contain a safe harbor provision to protect a party who destroys information in good faith according to a routine records retention policy.
Despite these general similarities, the proposed amendments differ from their federal counterparts in three important respects. Unlike their federal counterparts, the proposed amendments:
- Provide a definition for "electronically stored information" that is "intended to be broad enough to cover all current types of computer based information yet flexible enough to encompass future changes and technological developments."
- Do not require the parties to discuss electronically stored information at a discovery conference because Wisconsin does not require a discovery conference. Instead, the proposed amendments "encourage the courts to address the management of electronic discovery early by adding electronically stored information to the list of items that can be addressed by scheduling order, although it is not required."
- Do not contain a claw-back procedure to protect parties who inadvertently produce privileged or protected information. According to the Judicial Council, "waiver of privilege is more properly addressed under the rules of evidence, including the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine, than in the discovery rules."
The Supreme Court is expected to hear public comment on the proposed amendments soon, but the hearing date has not yet been scheduled. Stay tuned!