\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 1
14-JUN-10
Annotated Bibliography
13:41
217
Electronic Evidence Annotated
Bibliography
Nancy Levit *
Consultants and Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electronic and Internet Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electronic Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preservation of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electronic Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Emails and Text Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ethical Obligations (See also Privileges and Inadvertent
Disclosure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family, Matrimonial and Small Firm Practice Issues . . . . . .
Individual States (See also Electronic Filing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jurisdiction (See also Service of Process) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Presentation of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Privileges and Inadvertent Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Security of Electronic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Service of Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spoliation of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
218
219
220
224
225
225
226
227
228
229
231
R
232
234
236
237
237
239
240
241
242
244
246
R
This bibliography covers law review articles, internet articles
and blogs published primarily during or after 2005. Articles for
which the title is self-explanatory or that concern only a single
case, state, or statute are cited but not annotated.
* Curators’ and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 2
14-JUN-10
13:41
218 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Consultants and Experts
Darrin J. Behr, Anti-Forensics: What It Is, What It Does and Why
You Need to Know, 255 N.J. LAW. 9 (Dec. 2008) (discussing
methods of manipulating data (such as hiding evidence and
source manipulation) in ways that undermine computer forensic
investigations).
Beryl A. Howell, Digital Forensic: Sleuthing on Hard Drives and
Networks, 31 VT. B.J. 39 (Fall 2005) (providing a primer on how
to search computers without the aid of an expert, including tips
on examining computer usage and finding embedded metadata,
registry applications, deleted files, and search histories, as well as
renamed files).
Athena Johns, Computer Science and the Reference Manual for
Scientific Evidence: Defining the Judge’s Role as a Firewall, 14
INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 23 (Fall 2009) (applying the Daubert and
Frye standards to forensic computer experts, and addressing expert witness qualifications, experience and certification).
Lauren Katz, Current Development, A Balancing Act: Ethical
Dilemmas in Retaining E-Discovery Consultants, 22 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 929 (2009) (considering several ethical questions, including the tension between the obligation to charge reasonable
fees and potential needs to retain an e-discovery consultant to
satisfy obligations of diligence, as well as ethical concerns about
lawyers supervising electronically stored information services
consultants).
Sharon D. Nelson & John W. Simek, Ghostbusters: “Who You
Gonna Call?”, 28 FAM. ADVOC. 40 (Winter 2006) (discussing
pricing and qualifications of computer experts).
____________________
Keith L. Altman, Make the Most of e-Data Experts, 41 TRIAL 42
(Oct. 2005).
Beryl A. Howell & Samuel Rubin, What You Need to Know
About Digital Forensics, 28 PA. LAW. 32 (Dec. 2006).
David Jacquet, Computer Forensics: Hard Drive 101, 22 ME. B.J.
174 (Summer 2007).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 3
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
219
Claire R. LaVelle, What Document Forensic Examiners Should
Know About Digital and Electronic Signatures, 18 J. FORENSIC
DOCUMENT EXAMINATION 63 (2007).
Lynn Roth, Introduction to Computer Forensics, 17 NEV. LAW. 12
(June 2009).
D. Patricia Wallace, What Every Attorney Needs to Know About
Electronic Technology, 82 FLA. B.J. 22 (Oct. 2008).
Electronic and Internet Evidence
Shannon M. Curreri, Defining “Document” in the Digital Landscape of Electronic Discovery, 38 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1541 (2005)
(discussing whether back-up data, metadata, deleted data, instant
message logs, and temporary files should be considered discoverable “documents”).
Curt Franklin, How Internet Search Engines Work, How Stuff
Works, http://computer.howstuffworks.com/search-engine.htm/
printable (last visited Apr. 9, 2010) (offering a concise explanation of how most keyword searches work on the internet and suggesting tips for how to build a search).
Sharon Nelson et al., The Legal Implications of Social Networking, 22 REGENT U.L. REV. 1 (2009-10) (including some intriguing
cases about texting during depositions, blogs as a source of ediscovery, and social networking sites as evidence).
Leah Voigt Romano, Comment, Electronic Evidence and the Federal Rules, 38 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 1745 (2005) (discussing admissibility rules regarding digital, electronic and computer generated
evidence, as well as authentication, hearsay and best evidence issues with these forms of evidence).
Michael Whiteman, Appellate Court Briefs on the Web: Electronic Dynamos or Legal Quagmire?, 97 LAW LIBR. J. 467 (2005)
(discussing briefs as research tools, listing court rules on their
use, and providing internet sites where they are available).
____________________
Josh Blackman, Omniveillance, Google, Privacy in Public, and
the Right to Your Digital Identity: A Tort for Recording and Dis-
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 4
14-JUN-10
13:41
220 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
seminating an Individual’s Image over the Internet, 49 SANTA
CLARA L. REV. 313 (2009).
James M. Campbell, Evidentiary Requirements for the Admission
of Enhanced Digital Photographs, 74 DEF. COUNS. J. 12 (Jan.
2007).
Deborah R. Eltgoth, Note, Best Evidence and the Wayback Machine: Toward a Workable Authentication Standard for Archived
Internet Evidence, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 181 (2009).
Matthew Fagan, Note, “Can You Do a Wayback on That?” The
Legal Community’s Use of Cached Web Pages in and out of Trial,
13 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 46 (2007).
Sharon D. Nelson, Capturing Quicksilver: Records Management
for Blogs, Twittering and Social Networks, 35 VT. B.J. 52 (Summer 2009).
Matthew Werner, Google and Ye Shall Be Found: Privacy, Search
Queries, and the Recognition of a Qualified Privilege, 34
RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 273 (2007).
John S. Wilson, MySpace, Your Space, or Our Space? New Frontiers in Electronic Evidence, 86 OR. L. REV. 1201 (2007).
Electronic Discovery
Thomas Y. Allman, Conducting E-Discovery After the Amendments: The Second Wave, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 215 (Fall 2009)
(reviewing recent federal decisions, in 2008-2009, regarding preservation and litigation holds, spoliation sanctions, production orders, and obligations to participate in constructing appropriate
searches).
Thomas Y. Allman, The “Two-Tiered” Approach to E-Discovery:
Has Rule 26(b)(2)(B) Fulfilled Its Promise?, 14 RICH. J.L. &
TECH. 7 (Spring 2008) (covering interpretations of the obligation
to provide “reasonably accessible sources” of electronically
stored information, as well as the definition of “reasonable accessibility” as meaning available without “undue burden or cost”;
also addressing the second stage in which courts allow production from inaccessible sources for “good cause,” but noting that
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 5
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
221
courts will not find good cause to compel discovery from inaccessible sources if “substantially similar information may be available in more accessible sources”).
Dawn M. Bergin, How Will Lawyers Fare in the New World of EDiscovery, 18 PRAC. LITIGATOR 25 (Mar. 2007) (noting that lawyers are being held to a standard of care to produce electronic
discovery and providing a brief checklist for lawyers to comply
with the federal rules’ requirements to locate clients’ data, meetand-confer, and so on).
Alan F. Blakley, Unanswered Questions in the December 2006
Federal Rules Changes, 53 FED. LAW. 39 (Dec. 2006) (covering
initial disclosures under Rule 26, production format under Rule
26(f), “inaccessible” data under Rule 26(b)(2)(B), “claw-back
agreements” regarding inadvertent disclosures under Rule
26(b)(5)(B), and the “one-bite” provision under Rule 34 that
gives parties only one chance to request electronic information).
Emily Burns et al., E-Discovery: One Year of the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 64 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 201
(2008) (surveying early decisions regarding data that is “not reasonably accessible,” what constitutes “inadvertent production” of
privileged information, the form in which electronically stored
information should be requested and produced, and the good
faith and safe harbor provisions regarding destroyed documents).
Steven S. Gensler, Some Thoughts on the Lawyer’s E-volving
Duties in Discovery, 36 N. KY. L. REV 521 (2009) (addressing
comprehensively the requirements of discovery conferences, issues for negotiation, cooperation duties, and the lawyer’s role in
production of electronic documents).
David K. Isom, Electronic Discovery Primer for Judges, 2005
FED. CTS. L. REV. 1 (covering comprehensive definitions of document and electronic information, preserving information, expediting e-discovery, inspecting computers, discovering new sources
of electronic information, recovering back-up data, cost-allocation, production formats, and safe harbors).
John L. Krieger, Have You Embraced the New E-Discovery Rules
or Are You Just Hoping You Won’t Have to Deal With Them?, 17
NEV. LAW. 6 (June 2009) (raising issues regarding electronically
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 6
14-JUN-10
13:41
222 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
stored information to address at a pretrial conference, including:
the requirements to preserve electronic evidence, protocols for
deleting and backing up information, the format for data to be
produced, what to do about metadata, and a “‘claw back’ agreement regarding privileged or work-product production”).
Richard L. Marcus, E-Discovery and Beyond: Toward Brave New
World or 1984?, 25 REV. LITIG. 633 (2006) (discussing videotape
depositions, service by e-mail, virtual trials, and some of the potential threats of technology to reduce human face-to-face
interactions).
Bradley C. Nahrstadt, A Primer on Electronic Discovery: What
You Don’t Know Can Really Hurt You, 27 TRIAL ADVOC. Q. 17
(Fall 2008) (explaining e-discovery basics, such as different types
of electronic data (archival, back-up, legacy, and residual), the
recoverability of electronic data, how to draft appropriate types
of requests for different types of data, litigation support software,
and procedures to preserve documents (protective orders,
seizure orders, and written requests for preservation), as well as
sanctions for spoliation).
Louis R. Pepe & Jared Cohane, Document Retention, Electronic
Discovery, E-Discovery Cost Allocation and Spoliation of Evidence: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Litigation Today,
80 CONN. B.J. 331 (Dec. 2006) (covering statutory and regulatory
sources of duties to retain evidence, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg,
LLC, and advice on retention policies; offering a brief lexicon of
terms (e.g., LAN, WAN, active data, and off-line data); and exploring interpretations of the new federal rules).
Howard L. Speight & Lisa C. Kelly, Electronic Discovery, Not
Your Father’s Discovery, 37 ST. MARY’S L.J. 119 (2005) (analyzing preservation of electronic evidence to avoid spoliation, burdensome document requests, paying for e-discovery and costshifting).
Ramana Venkata, How To Meet the Electronic Discovery Challenge, 25 OF COUNS. 5 (Oct. 2006) (discussing advanced technology to organize electronic evidence).
____________________
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 7
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
223
Thomas Y. Allman, The Impact of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules, 12 RICH. J. L. & TECH. 13 (Spring 2006).
Thomas Y. Allman, Rule 37(f) Meets Its Critics: The Justification
for a Limited Preservation Safe Harbor for ESI, 5 NW. J. TECH. &
INTELL. PROP. 1 (2006).
John M. Barkett, E-Discovery Help May Be on the Way. . . Sort
of: Civil Rules, Advisory Committee Proposal, 72 DEF. COUNS. J.
37 (Jan. 2005).
Robert A. Barrer, Unintended Consequences: Avoiding and Addressing the Inadvertent Disclosure of Documents, 77 N.Y. ST.
B.J. 35 (Dec. 2005) (New York).
Anthony J. Battaglia, Dealing With Electronically Stored Information: Preservation, Production, and Privilege, 53 FED. LAW. 26
(May 2006).
Daniel B. Garrie & Matthew J. Armstrong, Electronic Discovery
and the Challenge Posed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2005 UCLA
J. L. TECH. 2.
Daniel B. Garrie et al., Hiding the Inaccessible Truth: Amending
the Federal Rules to Accommodate Electronic Discovery, 25 REV.
LITIG. 115 (2006).
James M. (Duke) Johnston Jr. & Philip A. Whistler, E-Discovery:
A Critical Litigation Issue for Franchisors and Franchisees, 26
FRANCHISE L.J. 20 (Summer 2006).
Vlad J. Kroll, Note, Default Production of Electronically Stored
Information Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The Requirements of Rule 34(b), 59 HASTINGS L.J. 221 (2007).
Rebecca Rockwood, Comment, Shifting Burdens and Concealing
Electronic Evidence: Discovery in the Digital Era, 12 RICH. J. L.
& TECH. 16 (Spring 2006).
Howard L. Speight & Lisa C. Kelly, Electronic Discovery: Not
Your Father’s Discovery, 37 ST. MARY’S L.J. 119 (2005).
Robert H. Thornburg, Electronic Discovery in Florida, 80 FLA.
B.J. 34 (Oct. 2006) (Florida).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 8
14-JUN-10
13:41
224 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Kenneth J. Withers, Electronically Stored Information: The December 2006 Amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
4 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 171 (2006).
Preservation of Information
Thomas Y. Allman, Managing Preservation Obligations After the
2006 Federal E-Discovery Amendments, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 9
(2007) (explaining the reasonable and good faith obligation to
preserve evidence when litigation is foreseeable as well as how a
party implements a “litigation hold” to suspend typical document
destruction policies).
John L. Carroll, Preservation of Documents in the Electronic
Age—What Should Courts Do?, 2005 FED. CTS. L. REV. 5 (assessing reasonable timing, scope and standards for preservation
orders).
Maria Perez Crist, Preserving the Duty to Preserve: The Increasing Vulnerability of Electronic Information, 58 S.C. L. REV. 7
(2006) (covering document retention and destruction policies,
the litigation hold, bad faith sanctions, and the safe harbor provision of Rule 37).
Paul W. Grimm et al., Proportionality in the Post-Hoc Analysis of
Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, 37 U. BALT. L. REV. 381
(2008) (evaluating the sources and scope of the duty to preserve
electronic data).
____________________
Alan M. Anderson, Issuing and Managing Litigation Hold Notices, 64 BENCH & B. MINN. 20 (Aug. 2007).
Khristi Doss Driver, You’ve Got to Know When to “Litigation
Hold” ‘Em: The Dangers of Failing to Preserve and Produce Electronically Stored Information, 68 ALA. LAW. 445 (Nov. 2007).
G. Spence Fricke, Preserving Electronically Stored Information
With a Litigation Hold—What’s It All About?, 43 ARK. LAW. 20
(Spring 2008).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 9
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
225
Production of Information
Henry S. Noyes, Good Cause Is Bad Medicine for the New EDiscovery Rules, 21 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 49 (2007) (discussing
problems with the “good cause” standard for failure to produce
electronically stored information that is not reasonably
accessible).
Sarah A. L. Phillips, Comment, Discoverability of Electronic
Data Under the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: How Effective Are Proposed Protections for
“Not Reasonably Accessible” Data?, 83 N.C. L. REV. 984 (2005)
(suggesting that courts should apply different standards to the
production of back-up data and deleted data).
____________________
Ophir D. Finkelthal, Note, Scope of Electronic Discovery and
Methods of Production, 38 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1591 (2005).
Neal H. Lewis, New Rules for Electronic Discovery, So Now
What?: Daubert’s Impact on Determining What Is Not Reasonably Accessible, 10 COMPUTER L. REV. & TECH. J. 239 (2006).
Costs
Tracey L. Boyd, Note, The Information Black Hole: Managing
the Issues Arising from the Increase in Electronic Data Discovery
in Litigation, 7 VAND. J. ENT. L. & PRAC. 323 (2005) (evaluating
the allocation of costs of electronic discovery, examining the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding it, and proposing solutions to the cost allocation dilemmas).
Jessica DeBono, Comment, Preventing and Reducing Costs and
Burdens Associated With E-Discovery: The 2006 Amendments to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 59 MERCER L. REV. 963
(2008) (discussing “meet and confer,” preservation and privilege
issues regarding electronic discovery).
Theodore C. Hirt, The Two-Tier Discovery Provision of Rule
26(B)(2)(B) - A Reasonable Measure for Controlling Electronic
Discovery?, 13 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 12 (2007) (explaining the provision that parties are not required to provide electronic evi-
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 10
14-JUN-10
13:41
226 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
dence that is not reasonably accessible because of excessive
costs).
Mohammad Iqbal, New Paradigms of E-Discover and Cost-Shifting: Determining Who Pays for Electronic Discovery, 72 DEF.
COUNS. J. 283 (2005) (reviewing the major cases on shifting costs
in electronic discovery).
Marian K. Riedy & Suman Beros, Win the Battle for Access to EData, 42 TRIAL 49 (Dec. 2006) (discussing “reasonable accessible
data” and cost-shifting).
Sonia Salinas, Note, Electronic Discovery and Cost-Shifting: Who
Foots the Bill?, 38 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1639 (2005) (examining
prominent decisions on cost-shifting in e-discovery).
____________________
Ross Chaffin, Comment, The Growth of Cost-Shifting in Response to the Rising Cost and Importance of Computerized Data
in Litigation, 59 OKLA. L. REV. 115 (2006) (Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, 229 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
Kara A. Schiermeyer, Note, The Artful Dodger: Responding Parties’ Ability to Avoid Electronic Discovery Costs Under
26(B)(2)(b) and 26(B)(2)(c) and the Preservation Obligation, 42
CREIGHTON L. REV. 227 (2009).
Bradley T. Tennis, Comment, Cost-Shifting in Electronic Discovery, 119 YALE L.J. 1113 (2010).
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg
____________________
James M. Evangelista, Polishing the “Gold Standard” on the EDiscovery Cost-Shifting Analysis: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg,
LLC, 9 J. TECH. L. & POL’Y 1 (2004).
Elaine Ki Jin Kim, Comment, The New Electronic Discovery
Rules: A Place for Employee Privacy, 115 YALE L.J. 1481 (2006)
(Zubulake).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 11
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
227
Janet Ramsey, Zubulake V: Counsel’s Obligations to Preserve
and Produce Electronic Information, 84 MICH. B.J. 26 (Oct.
2005).
Jessica Lynn Repa, Comment, Adjudicating Beyond the Scope of
Ordinary Business: Why the Inaccessibility Test in Zubulake Unduly Stifles Cost-Shifting During Electronic Discovery, 54 AM. U.
L. REV. 257 (2004).
Bahar Shariati, Note, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg: Evidence that
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Provide the Means for Determining Cost Allocation in Electronic Discovery Disputes?, 49
VILL. L. REV. 393 (2004).
Daniel Van Horn, Preserving Electronic Evidence: How Closely
Should a Tennessee Court Follow Zubulake?, 41 TENN. B.J. 25
(Apr. 2005) (Tennessee).
Sanctions
Thomas Y. Allman, Achieving an Appropriate Balance: The Use
of Counsel Sanctions in Connection with the Resolution of E-Discovery Misconduct, 15 RICH. J. L. & TECH. 9 (Spring 2009) (discussing the “reasonable inquiry” requirement of Rule 26(g) and
examining a new willingness on the part of courts to sanction
outside counsel for failing to inquire about their clients’ inadequate document searches in discovery).
Sanctions in Electronic Discovery Cases: Views From the Judges,
78 FORDHAM L. REV. 1 (2009) (offering commentary from panelist judges on whether they require a particular culpable mental
state (negligence or recklessness) as well as bad faith before imposing Rule 37 sanctions in e-discovery cases).
____________________
Thomas Y. Allman, Deterring E-Discovery Misconduct With
Counsel Sanctions: The Unintended Consequences of Qualcomm
v. Broadcom, 118 YALE. L.J. POCKET PART. 161 (Mar. 4, 2009).
Kristen McNeal, Note, Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.:
9,259,985 Reasons to Comply With Discovery Requests, 15 RICH.
J.L. & TECH. 10 (Spring 2009).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 12
14-JUN-10
13:41
228 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Sheri Qualters, 25 Percent of Reported E-Discovery Opinions in
2008 Involved Sanctions Issues, NAT’L L.J., Dec. 17, 2008, available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426805975&rss=
newswire.
Searches
Jason R. Baron, Toward a Federal Benchmarking Standard for
Evaluating Information Retrieval Products Used in E-Discovery,
6 SEDONA CONF. J. 237 (2005) (assessing search methodologies
for retrieving information from electronic documents, such as
Boolean, concept, natural language, and fuzzy logic searches).
Gregory L. Fordham, Using Keyword Search Terms in E-Discovery and How They Relate to Issues of Responsiveness, Privilege,
Evidence Standards, and Rube Goldberg, 15 RICH. J.L. & TECH.
8 (Spring 2009) (explaining features of search engines, such as
Boolean connectors and fuzzy logic, and limitations of particular
search methodologies).
Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Document Retention and Production, The Sedona Conference Best
Practices Commentary on the Use of Search and Informational
Retrieval Methods in E-Discovery, 8 SEDONA CONF. J. 189 (Fall
2007) (offering pointers on automated search methods and informational retrieval products as well as the need to be able to reconstruct search methodologies).
Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Document Retention and Production, The Sedona Conference
Commentary on Achieving Quality in the E-Discovery Process, 10
SEDONA CONF. J. 299 (Fall 2009) (discussing judgmental sampling, independent testing, statistical sampling and other techniques to test the efficacy of search terms in e-discovery).
____________________
Steven C. Bennett, Do Ask, Do Tell: Keyword Search Terms, 81
N.Y. ST. B.J. 44 (Oct. 2009).
Steven C. Bennett, E-Discovery by Keyword Search, 15 PRAC.
LITIGATOR 7 (2004).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 13
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
229
Ralph C. Losey, Mancia v. Mayflower Begins a Pilgrimage to the
New World of Cooperation, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 377 (Fall 2009).
Christen M. Steimle, Note, The Decision to Compel Unrestricted
Forensic Imaging: A Note Discussing John B. v. Goetz, 36 N. KY.
L. REV. 629 (2009) (6th Cir.).
Electronic Filing
American Bar Association, State Courts Using a State-Wide
Electronic Filing System, http:// www.abanet.org/tech/ltrc/research/efiling/ (last visited Apr. 11, 2010) (listing and linking to
thirteen states and D.C. that have statewide electronic filing systems, and providing links to all of the federal systems).
Robert A. Guy, Jr., A Model Protocol for Electronic Filing: Best
Practices for Law Firms Making the Transition to Case Management/Electronic Case Files, 53 FED. LAW. 38 (Aug. 2006) (suggesting an internal routing system for receiving, maintaining,
filing, and docketing deadlines).
Wendy R. Leibowitz, E-Filing Projects in the U.S., http://
www.wendytech.com/efilingprojects.htm (last visited Apr. 11,
2010) (offering a list of federal and state electronic filing
systems).
Peter W. Martin, Online Access to Court Records—From Documents to Data, Particulars to Patterns, 53 VILL. L. REV. 855 (2008)
(providing an overview of the federal Public Access to Court
Records (PACER) system and explaining how to retrieve data
and file documents)
John T. Matthias, E-Filing Expansion in State, Local, and Federal
Courts 2007, http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/
2007/ELFileTrends2007.pdf (discussing pilot projects in more
than half of the states).
Travis Olson et al., A Guide to Model Rules for Electronic Filing
and Service (2003), available at http:// www.lexisnexis.com/literature/pdfs/RulesPaper072903.pdf (offering a clear overview of
how electronic filing works and proposed model rules).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 14
14-JUN-10
13:41
230 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Catherine Spratt, Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press,
Electronic Access to Court Records (Spring 2007), http://
www.rcfp.org/ecourt/index.html (listing electronic filing rules for
each state).
Elisabeth A. Wilson, Note, Electronic Case Filing: What Happens
When Counsel Does Not Receive Email Notices?, 10 COMPUTER
L. REV. & TECH. J. 229 (Winter 2006) (discussing an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, American Boat Co. v. Unknown
Sunken Barge, which addresses the factors for a court to consider
regarding a party rebutting the presumption of email delivery).
____________________
Trent L. Bush et al., The State of E-Filing in Illinois, 97 ILL. B.J.
344 (July 2009) (Illinois).
Bev Butula, Online Access to Circuit Court Dockets, 80 WIS.
LAW. 20 (Oct. 2007) (Wisconsin).
Tracy Carbasho, Third Circuit to Implement Mandatory Electronic Filing System Dec. 15, 10 LAWYERS J. 5 (Nov. 21, 2008).
Electronic Filing Becomes Mandatory in Montana Federal Courts
on Jan. 10, 32 MONT. LAW. 20 (Nov. 2006).
Kraettli Q. Epperson, A Status Report: On-Line Images and EFiling of Land Documents in Oklahoma, 59 CONSUMER FIN. L.Q.
REP. 316 (2005) (Oklahoma).
Helen Gunnarsson, How Not to Do E-Filing, 96 ILL. B.J. 336
(July 2008).
Helen Gunnarsson, Illinois Courts on the Web, 95 ILL. B.J. 180
(Apr. 2007) (Illinois).
H. Craig Hall, Jr., Electronic Filing in Federal Court: Where Are
We Now?, 20 UTAH B.J. 32 (Feb. 2007) (Utah).
John L. Krieger, Mandatory Electronic Case Filing, 14 NEV. LAW.
20 (Apr. 2005) (Nevada).
Susan Larson, The State of Electronic Court Filing: Courts Are
Moving Ahead to Implement Electronic Filing Systems—With or
Without Input From the Local Bar, 40 TRIAL 31 (Jan. 2004).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 15
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
231
Beau Sterling & Gloria Sturman, Electronic Filing in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, 17 NEV. LAW. 35 (May 2009).
Lynn E. Sudbeck, Placing Court Records Online: Balancing Judicial Accountability with Public Trust and Confidence: An Analysis
of State Court Electronic Access Policies and a Proposal for South
Dakota Court Records, 51 S.D. L. REV. 81 (2006) (South
Dakota).
Peter W. Vogel, You Can e-File in State Courts Today, 69 TEX.
B.J. 114 (Feb. 2006).
Barton R. Voigt, Update: Electronic Filing in Wyoming Courts, 30
WYO. LAW. 25 (Aug. 2007) (Wyoming).
Robert Craig Waters, The World Wide Web and E-Filing in Florida, 91 FLA. B.J. 34 (Apr. 2007) (Florida).
Emails and Text Messages
Salvatore Joseph Bauccio, Comment, E-Discovery: Why and
How E-Mail Is Changing the Way Trials Are Won and Lost, 45
DUQ. L. REV. 269 (2007) (explaining how electronic data are
stored, penalties for negligent or willful spoliation of electronic
evidence, and proposals for the format in which electronic information must be produced).
Erik Harris, Note, Discovery of Portable Electronic Devices, 61
ALA. L. REV. 193 (2009) (explaining the physical configurations
of data stored on devices such as Palm PDAs, iPhones and
Blackberrys, the special preservation problems (because of common overwriting), and possible approaches to freezing, cloning
or forensically acquiring data stored on a portable electronic
device).
Erin Marie Secord, Note, Exploring Challenges With the Discovery of Text Messages in Federal Cases Through the Lens of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Stored Communications
Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-11, 15 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL & APP. ADVOC.
143 (2010) (discussing possible privileges under the Stored Communications Act).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 16
14-JUN-10
13:41
232 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Kenneth J. Withers, “Ephemeral Data” and the Duty to Preserve
Discoverable Electronically Stored Information, 37 U. BALT. L.
REV. 349 (2008) (considering preservation obligations relevant to
instant messages, emails, and digital codes, such as cache or swap
files).
____________________
Craig Ball, A Practical Guide to E-Mail Discovery: Do You Know
What to Ask for When Seeking a Defendant’s E-Mail Records?
Learning Which Technology Propels E-Mail Systems and Where
Messages Are Stored Is the First Step, 41 TRIAL 29 (Oct. 2005).
Sharon Burger, Attorney-Client Privilege Meets Email, 51 B. B.J.
5 (Apr. 2007) (Massachusetts).
Rodney A. Satterwhite, Instant Messaging: Fleeting but Furious,
15 INT’L HR J. 5 (Winter 2006).
Marjorie A. Shields, Annotation, Discovery of Deleted E-mail
and Other Deleted Electronic Records, 27 A.L.R. 6TH 565 (2007).
N. Jill Yaziji, Texas Supreme Court Denies Right to Search Opponent’s Emails and Sets Standard for E-Discovery, 47 HOUS. LAW.
53 (Feb. 2010) (Texas).
Ethical Obligations (See also Privileges and
Inadvertent Disclosure)
Debra Lyn Bassett, E-Pitfalls: Ethics and E-Discovery, 36 N. KY.
L. REV. 449 (2009) (noting that the ethical issues in e-discovery
follow patterns familiar in non-electronic cases and arguing that
similar rules and approaches should apply).
Steven C. Bennett, Ethics of Lawyer Social Networking, 73 ALB.
L. REV. 113 (2009) (suggesting hazards of lawyer communications on social networking sites, such as the creation of unintended attorney-client relationships, posting of improper
advertisements, and engaging in the unauthorized practice in jurisdictions in which the attorney is not licensed).
Adam R. Bialek et al., Attorney Web Sites: Ethical Issues Are
Only the Beginning, 81 N.Y. ST. B.J. 10 (June 2009) (addressing
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 17
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
233
attorney advertising rules (in New York) as well as potential copyright and attorney-client relationship problems arising from attorney web sites).
Adam Pierson, Current Development, What’s Yours Is Ours:
Making Sense of Inadvertent Disclosure, 22 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1095 (2009) (addressing competing ethical obligations for attorneys who receive inadvertently disclosed evidence).
Gregory D. Shelton, Providing Competent Representation in the
Digital Information Age, 74 DEF. COUNSEL J. 261 (July 2007) (explaining briefly what attorneys need to know about information
management systems, electronic discovery rules and terminology,
and document preservation).
____________________
ABA Ethics Opinion: Lawyers Receiving E-Documents May Examine “Hidden” Metadata, 24 LAW. PC 6 (Dec. 15, 2006).
Steven C. Bennett, The Ethics of Legal Outsourcing, 36 N. KY. L.
REV. 479 (2009).
Michael J. DiLernia, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(B)(5)(B)
and the Ethics of Inadvertent Disclosure, 20 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 533 (2007).
Joseph Gallagher, Note, E-Ethics: The Ethical Dimension of the
Electronic Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, 20 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 613 (2007).
David Hricik, Mining for Embedded Data: Is It Ethical to Take
Advantage of Other People’s Failures?, 8 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 231
(2007).
Bradley H. Leiber, Applying Ethics Rules to Rapidly Changing
Technology: The D.C. Bar’s Approach to Metadata, 21 GEO. J.
LEGAL ETHICS 893 (2008) (District of Colombia).
Andrew M. Perlman, Untangling Ethics Theory from Attorney
Conduct Rules: The Case of Inadvertent Disclosures, 13 GEO.
MASON L. REV. 767 (2005).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 18
14-JUN-10
13:41
234 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Christopher D. Wall, Ethics in the Era of Electronic Evidence: To
Represent Your Clients Effectively and Ethically, You Need a
Good Grasp of the E-Discovery Process—and the Obligations It
Creates for You and Opposing Counsel, 41 TRIAL 56 (Oct. 2005).
Family, Matrimonial and Small Firm Practice
Issues
William S. Friedlander, All in the Family Computer, 41 TRIAL 36
(Oct. 2005) (offering pointers on how to frame discovery requests so that, for example, data compilations include time and
date stamps, as well providing a small checklist to assist in planning e-discovery).
Carol E. Heckman & Jerauld E. Brydges, Winning Electronic
Discovery Motions, 4 SEDONA CONF. J. 151 (2003) (offering practical advice on how to set up a motion to compel, including a
request letter and an initial conference, as well as suggestions for
specific language and ways to educate and persuade the court).
Richard L. Marcus, E-Discovery Beyond the Federal Rules, 37 U.
BALT. L. REV. 321 (2008) (providing anecdotes and trends of
electronic discovery in state courts and under federal local rules).
Jennifer Mitchell, Note, Sex, Lies, and Spyware: Balancing the
Right to Privacy Against the Right to Know in the Marital Relationship, 9 J. L. & FAM. STUD. 171 (2007) (covering federal and
state laws regarding spyware).
Laura W. Morgan, Gotcha! Finding the Stuff You Just Know
They’re Hiding, 28 FAM. ADVOC. 10 (Winter 2006) (offering a
quick primer for e-discovery in family law cases: suggesting types
of electronic evidence to request in discovery, including spreadsheets, financial management programs, emails and electronic
calendars; detailing what a computer forensics specialist can uncover; and discussing the legality of spousal electronic snooping).
Laura W. Morgan, Marital Cybertorts: The Limits of Privacy in
the Family Computer, 20 J. AM. ACAD. MATRIM. LAW. 231 (2007)
(discussing federal causes of action under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 19
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
235
well as state common law torts for inappropriate uses of the family computer).
Sharon D. Nelson & John W. Simek, Electronic Discovery in
Everyday Cases, 69 OR. ST. B. BULL. 31 (Mar. 2009) (addressing
issues such as the format of electronic evidence and proscriptions
against the use of spyware on family members).
Sharon D. Nelson & John W. Simek, The Growing Phenomenon
of Computer Spying: The Insidious Gathering of Electronic Evidence for Family-Law Practitioners, 33 MONT. LAW. 11 (Jan.
2008) (discussing types of spyware and provisions of the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act that might apply to the use of spyware).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, 29 FAM. ADVOC. 22
(Winter 2007) (providing a sample motion).
____________________
Mark A. Buchanan, Uncovering the Employer’s E-Data, 41
TRIAL 38 (Oct. 2005).
Camille Calman, Note, Spy v. Spouse: Regulating Surveillance
Software on Shared Marital Computers, 105 COLUM. L. REV.
2097 (2005).
Ervin A. Gonzalez & Patrick S. Montoya, 10 Tips Leading to Efficient and Effective EDiscovery for the Small Law Firm, 30 WYO.
LAW. 10 (Aug. 2007).
Sharon D. Nelson & John W. Simek, Adultery in the Electronic
Era: Spyware, Avatars and Cybersex, 31 WYO. LAW. 20 (Dec.
2008).
Jakob Z. Norman, Drafting Electronic Discovery Requests, 29
FAM. ADVOC. 27 (Winter 2007).
Brian Zayas, Gaining E-Discovery Access to Home Computers,
30 L.A. LAW. 12 (Dec. 2007).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 20
14-JUN-10
13:41
236 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Individual States (See also Electronic Filing)
Thomas Y. Allman, Addressing State E-Discovery Issues
Through Rulemaking: The Case for Adopting the 2006 Federal
Amendments, 74 DEF. COUNSEL J. 233 (July 2007) (listing the
rulemaking efforts of twenty-six states).
Henry S. Noyes, Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Stirring the State
Law of Privilege and Professional Responsibility With a Federal
Stick, 66 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 673 (2009) (discussing the provisions of Rule 502 that permit federal courts to issue discovery
orders that are binding on state courts).
Richard Van Duizend, Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information—What?
Why? How?, 35 W. ST. U. L. REV. 237 (2007) (explaining the
standards for e-discovery developed for state courts by the Conference of Chief Justices).
____________________
Thomas Y. Allman, State by State Summary Report of E-Discovery Efforts (2007), http://discoveryresources.dreamhosters.com/
wp-content/uploads/2007/10/staterulesoctober.pdf.
Shannon M. Awsumb, Navigating E-Discovery: How to Avoid
Common Pitfalls, 65 BENCH & B. MINN. 29 (Oct. 2008)
(Minnesota).
Daniel B. Garrie, E-Discovery: Federal Rules Versus California
Rules—The Devil Is in the Details, 63 CONSUMER FIN. L.Q. REP.
218 (Fall-Winter 2009) (Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.).
Richard K. Herrmann et al., Managing Discovery in the Digital
Age: A Guide to Electronic Discovery in the District of Delaware,
8 DEL. L. REV. 75 (2005) (Delaware).
Sara Hoffman Jurand, California E-Discovery Statute Doesn’t
Mandate Cost-Shifting, Court Says, 41 TRIAL 73 (Feb. 2005)
(California).
Barry C. Klickstein & Katherine Young Fergus, Navigating EDiscovery in the Massachusetts State Courts, 14 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL
& APP. ADVOC. 35 (2009) (Massachusetts).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 21
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
237
Lawrence C. Maxwell, New Rules for E-Discovery, 45 TENN. B.J.
12 (June 2009) (Tennessee).
David Narkiewicz, E-Discovery: The Essentials—What Every
Pennsylvania Lawyer Needs to Know about E-Discovery—and
the Consequences of Not Knowing, 30 PA. LAW. 18 (Dec. 2008)
(Pennsylvania).
Steven L. Nichols, Metadata Minefield, Utah Rules, 22 UTAH B.J.
14 (Dec. 2009) (Utah).
M. James Thomas, At the Intersection of Privilege and E-Discovery, 44 TENN. B.J. 14 (Dec. 2008) (Tennessee).
Leroy J. Tornquist & Christine R. Olson, A Last Vestige of Oregon’s Wild West: Oregon’s Lawless Approach to Electronically
Stored Information, 45 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 161 (2008)
(Oregon).
Jurisdiction (See also Service of Process)
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, In Rem, Quasi in Rem, and Virtual in Rem
Jurisdiction Over Discovery, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 253 (Fall 2009)
(considering that electronic evidence can be “virtually” anywhere, the article proposes that federal courts develop a concept
of virtual in rem jurisdiction to allow them to reach documents in
any geographic area).
Metadata
J. Brian Beckham, Production, Preservation, and Disclosure of
Metadata, 7 COLUM. SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 1 (2005-06) (explaining metadata, reverse editing and scrubbing, and discussing inadvertent disclosures).
Sheila Blackford, Metadata: Danger or Delight?, 66 OR. ST. B.
BULL. 29 (May 2006) (discussing metadata cleaning programs).
Mike Breen, Comment, Nothing to Hide: Why Metadata Should
Be Presumed Relevant, 56 U. KAN. L. REV. 439 (2008) (elaborating the types of information contained in metadata and urging a
rebuttable presumption for the relevance of metadata).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 22
14-JUN-10
13:41
238 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Philip J. Favro, A New Frontier in Electronic Discovery: Preserving and Obtaining Metadata, 13 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 1 (2007)
(explaining the ways metadata is contained in Word,
WordPerfect, Excel, email and .pdf documents and covering recent cases regarding production of electronically stored
information).
Gretchen J. Harris, Comment, Metadata: High-Tech Invisible Ink
Legal Considerations, 78 MISS. L.J. 939 (2009) (explaining how
metadata is created in documents in word processing systems
(such as Versions, Track Changes, Last Ten Authors and Document Statistics in Word) and photographs, covering scrubbing
programs to remove it, and touching on the basics of admissibility of metadata in court).
Beryl A. Howell, Digital Forensics: Sleuthing on Hard Drives and
Networks, 31 VT. B.J. 39 (Fall 2005) (offering an overview of
computer usage, explaining embedded metadata, where files are
stored on hard drives and some document hiding techniques such
as renaming files).
Tom Mighell, The New Federal Rules—Are You Ready?, 69 TEX.
B.J. 1042 (Dec. 2006) (discussing requests for electronic data in
its “native” format to obtain metadata and listing electronic discovery websites, such as Discovery Resources, Electronic Discovery News, at http://www.discoveryresources.org).
Campbell C. Steele, Note, Attorneys Beware: Metadata’s Impact
on Privilege, Work Product, and the Ethical Rules, 35 U. MEM. L.
REV. 911 (2005) (discussing the problem of metadata (data hidden in a document but not visible on its face) that may be inadvertently disclosed in electronic discovery).
____________________
Scott W. Cockerham, Note, Lake v. City of Phoenix: Is Metadata
a Public Record?, 51 ARIZ. L. REV. 517 (2009) (Arizona).
Lucia Cucu, Note, The Requirement for Metadata Production
Under Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 93 CORNELL
L. REV. 221 (2007).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 23
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
239
David Hricik, I Can Tell When You’re Telling Lies: Ethics and
Embedded Confidential Information, 30 J. LEGAL PROF. 79
(2006).
Microsoft Office Online: Find and Remove Metadata (Hidden
Information) in Your Legal Documents, http://office.microsoft.
com/en-us/help/HA010776461033.aspx (last visited Mar. 31,
2010).
Peter Mierzwa, Metadata: Now You Don’t See It—Now You Do,
20 CBA REC. 52 Oct. 2006).
Marjorie A. Shields, Annotation, Discoverability of Metadata,
2006 A.L.R. 6TH 6.
Miscellaneous
Moze Cowper & Amor Esteban, E-Discovery, Privacy, and the
Transfer of Data Across Borders: Proposed Solutions for Cutting
the Gordian Knot, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 263 (Fall 2009) (discussing cross-border discovery, international data privacy laws, and
the Article 29 Working Party Paper).
Roland C. Goss, Hot Issues in Electronic Discovery: Information
Retention Programs and Preservation, 42 TORT TRIAL & INS.
PRAC. L.J. 797 (2007) (explaining regulatory requirements for
document retention for businesses, such as state insurance department rules, Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements for accountants, and HIPAA rules for health care providers).
____________________
Thomas K. Clancy, The Fourth Amendment Aspects of Computer
Searches and Seizures: A Perspective and a Primer, 75 MISS. L.J.
193 (2005).
Daniel K. Gelb, An Approach to Cell Phone Evidence for Criminal Defense Attorneys, 33 CHAMPION 28 (Nov. 2009).
Derek Haynes, Comment, Search Protocols: Establishing the
Protections Mandated by the Fourth Amendment Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures in the World of Electronic Evidence, 40 MCGEORGE L. REV. 757 (2009).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 24
14-JUN-10
13:41
240 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Orin S. Kerr, Searches and Seizures in a Digital World, 119
HARV. L. REV. 531 (2005).
Paul Richert, Electronic Discovery Bibliography, 42 AKRON L.
REV. 419 (2009).
Working Paper, Working Document 1/2009 on Pre-Trial Discovery for Cross-Border Civil Litigation, 00339/09/EN, WP 158 (Feb.
11, 2009), http://ec.europa.eu/justice_ home/fsj/privacy/docs/
wpdocs/2009/wp158_en.pdf.
David J. S. Ziff, Note, Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant,
105 COLUM. L. REV. 841 (2005).
Presentation of Information
Lucille A. Jewell, Through a Glass Darkly: Using Brain Science
and Visual Rhetoric to Gain a Professional Perspective on Visual
Advocacy, 19 S. CAL. INTERDISC. L.J. 237 (2010) (drawing on
rhetoric and media studies to evaluate the use of visual images in
criminal and civil cases, offering pointers on how to make arguments visual, and considering evidentiary foundational issues as
well as possible objections).
Zoe Littlepage, Keep Jurors Awake With Powerful Visuals, 43
TRIAL 32 (Oct. 2007) (covering flip charts, causation theory
checklists, enlarged and laminated exhibits, witness photos, dayin-the-life videos, deposition images and the types of image-viewing software necessary to show electronic evidence to juries).
Gregory J. Morse, Techno-Jury: Techniques in Verbal and Visual
Persuasion, 54 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 241 (2009-10) (addressing jurors’ shortened attention span as a result of all of the electronic
information that is immediately available, discussing visual
images that paint pictures for jurors, and explaining how to integrate stories, themes and images to assist jurors in understanding
issues).
____________________
Craig Ball, Winning With PowerPoint, 41 TRIAL 34 (Jan. 2005).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 25
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
241
Alex Cianfrocco, Become a Trial Technology Rock Star, 11 LAWYERS J. 6 (Nov. 20, 2009).
Robert Lane & Bruce A. Olsen, Winning at Trial With a Dynamic Powerpoint Presentation, 35 VT. B.J. 52 (Fall 2009).
Frederic I. Lederer, Wired: What We’ve Learned About Courtroom Technology, 24 CRIM. JUST. 18 (Winter 2010).
Evelyn Marcus, Note, The New Razzle Dazzle: Questioning the
Propriety of High-Tech Audiovisual Displays in Closing Argument, 30 VT. L. REV. 361 (2005-06).
Jim M. Perdue, Jr., The Art of Demonstrative Evidence, 41 TRIAL
46 (May 2005).
Richard K. Sherwin et al., Law in the Digital Age: How Visual
Communication Technologies Are Transforming the Practice,
Theory, and Teaching of Law, 12 B. U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 227
(2006).
Becky R. Thorson, How Not to Use Powerpoint in the Courtroom, 54 FED. LAW. 6 (July 2007).
Privileges and Inadvertent Disclosure
Anthony Francis Bruno, Note, Preserving Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Electronic Discovery, 54 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV.
541 (2010) (addressing logistical difficulties of sorting through
electronic documents for privileged material and discussing recent cases concerning inadvertent disclosure).
Julie Cohen, Note, Look Before You Leap: A Guide to the Law
of Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information in the Era of
E-Discovery, 93 IOWA L. REV. 627 (2008) (categorizing courts’
approaches to inadvertent disclosure as strict, lenient or
moderate).
Roger P. Meyers, An Analysis of Federal Rule of Evidence 502
and Its Early Application, 55 WAYNE L. REV. 1441 (2009) (detailing specific provisions of Rule 502, and analyzing choice of law
ramifications as well as the rule’s applicability to state
proceedings).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 26
14-JUN-10
13:41
242 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Patrick L. Oot, The Protective Order Toolkit: Protecting Privilege
With Federal Rule of Evidence 502, 10 SEDONA CONF. J. 237 (Fall
2009) (discussing the history of FRE 502 and cases in which
courts protected the privilege for inadvertently disclosed attorney client or work product protected communications, as well as
providing model protective order provisions).
Mikah K. Story, Twenty-First Century Pillow-Talk: Applicability
of the Marital Communications Privilege to Electronic Mail, 58
S.C. L. REV. 275 (2006) (evaluating whether the marital communications privilege applies to spousal email communications).
Jessica Wang, Comment, Nonwaiver Agreements After Federal
Rule of Evidence 502: A Glance at Quick-Peek and Clawback
Agreements, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1835 (2009) (arguing that Rule
502 is too expansive in encouraging courts to uphold agreements
regarding the preservation of privileges in the face of inadvertent
disclosures, and arguing that “irrespective-of-care nonwaiver
agreements violate public policy”).
____________________
Laura Catherine Daniel, Note, The Dubious Origins and Dangers of Clawback and Quick-Peek Agreements: An Argument
Against Their Codification in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 47 WM. & MARY L. REV. 663 (2005).
Sasha K. Danna, Note, The Impact of Electronic Discovery on
Privilege and the Applicability of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 38 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1683 (2005).
Steve Leben, Considering the Inadvertent Disclosure of Metadata,
75 J. KAN. B.A. 26 (Apr. 2006).
Kathleen Peterson & Todd Nunn, Electronic Discovery, Inadvertent Production and the New Federal Rules, 48 ORANGE COUNTY
LAW. 14 (Aug. 2006).
Security of Electronic Data
Jeff Beard, Lawtech Guru Blog, www.lawtechguru.com (last visited Apr. 12, 2010) (providing a blog with articles about internet
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 27
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
243
security, as well as legal technology, gadgets, and electronic
discovery).
Stephen Bird, Security & Privacy: Guarding Your Law Firm’s
Electronic Data, Part One, 22 LAW. PC 1 (May 1, 2005) (introducing basic ideas about firewalls and antispyware and offering tips
for protecting data).
Information Assurance Directorate, National Security Agency,
The 60 Minute Network Security Guide, May 15, 2006, http://
www.nsa.gov/ia/_files/support/I33-011R-2006.pdf (explaining in
detail how to keep a network safe, addressing service packs and
security measures, and discussing intrusion detection systems).
Vincent R. Johnson, Cybersecurity, Identity Theft, and the Limits
of Tort Liability, 57 S.C. L. REV. 255 (2005) (addressing potential
tort causes of action for the improper release of confidential
information).
Ross Kodner, Ross Ipsa Loquitur, http://rossipsa.com (last visited
Apr. 12, 2010) (offering a blog with numerous columns about
technology and data security for practitioners).
Lawyer’s Professional Indemnity Co., Managing the Security and
Privacy of Electronic Data in a Law Office (2005), http://
www.practicepro.ca/practice/pdf/ManagingSecurityPrivacy.pdf
(offering a free, downloadable booklet on law office security,
covering topics such as email dangers, firewalls, spyware, safe
web searches, and backups).
Bill Piatt & Paula deWitte, Loose Lips Sink Attorney-Client
Ships: Unintended Technological Disclosure of Confidential Communications, 39 ST. MARY’S L.J. 781 (2008) (covering a variety of
little-discussed threats regarding security of client data and communications, such as hotel room security, insider threats and disposal of old computers). .
Larry Port, Proper Protection, 29 LEGAL MGMT. 34 (Apr. 2010)
(addressing systems, software, mobile and remote security
features).
Paul M. Schwartz & Edward J. Janger, Notification of Data Security Breaches, 105 MICH. L. REV. 913 (2007) (discussing federal
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 28
14-JUN-10
13:41
244 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
and state laws requiring companies to inform customers if a
breach of data security occurs regarding their personal
information).
Eric Van Buskirk, Information Security 101: Protecting Yourself
and Your Clients, 43 ARIZ. ATT’Y 34 (Oct. 2006) (describing
methods of protecting electronic files, file systems and wireless
networks against incursions from invasions such as wiretaps, remote access, and key loggers).
____________________
Stephen Bird, Password Management: Security Suites as Well as
Freeware Offer Assistance, 26 LAW. PC 1 (Aug. 15, 2009).
William M. Corrigan, Jr., & Jeffrey L. Schultz, Civil Actions for
the Misappropriation of Electronic Data: The Missouri and Federal Computer Tampering Acts, 65 J. MO. B. 172 (Aug. 2009).
Eric Friedberg & Michael McGowan, Lost Backups, Stolen
Laptops and Other Tales of Data-Breach Woe, 79 N.Y. ST. B.J. 42
(Feb. 2007).
Alexandra Hanson, Comment, Legal Process Outsourcing to India: So Hot Right Now!, 62 SMU L. REV. 1889 (2009).
Faith M. Heikkila, Data Privacy in the Law Firm: How to Protect
Client Data, 88 MICH. B.J. 33 (July 2009) (Michigan).
Robert J. Scott & Julie Machal-Fulks, Ethical Considerations for
Attorneys Responding to a Data Security Breach, 6 NW. J. TECH.
& INTELL. PROP. 171 (Spring 2008).
Sajai Singh, The Security of Data Export to India, 13 INTERNET
L.J. 9 (Nov. 2009).
Brett Tarr, Keeping It Confidential: Legal Administrators and
Others in Law Firm Management Can Work Together to Reduce
the Risk of Losing Proprietary Data as a Result of Employee Departures, 28 LEGAL MGMT. 40 (Feb. 2009).
Service of Process
Jeremy A. Colby, E-SOP’s Fables: Recent Developments in Electronic Service of Process, 9 J. INTERNET L. 3 (June 2006) (ad-
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 29
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
245
dressing electronic service of process cases regarding parties
residing inside and outside the United States).
Kevin W. Lewis, Comment, E-Service: Ensuring the Integrity of
International E-Mail Service of Process, 13 ROGER WILLIAMS U.
L. REV. 285 (2008) (focusing on the two federal cases, Rio
Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink (from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) and Broadfoot v. Diaz (from the Northern District of Georgia Bankruptcy Court), that started the email
service of process idea).
Matthew R. Schreck, Preventing “You’ve Got Mail”  From
Meaning “You’ve Been Served”: How Service of Process by EMail Does Not Meet Constitutional Procedural Due Process Requirements, 38 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1121 (2005) (arguing that
service by email should be a method of last resort used only
when other methods fail).
Andriana L. Shultz, Comment, Superpoked and Served: Service
of Process Via Social Networking Sites, 43 U. RICH. L. REV. 1497
(2009) (discussing an Australian case authorizing service of the
notice of a default judgment on Facebook).
____________________
Aaron R. Chacker, Note, E-ffectuating Notice: Rio Properties v.
Rio International Interlink, 48 VILL. L. REV. 597 (2003).
Jessica Klander, Note, Civil Procedure: Facebook Friend or Foe?
The Impact of Modern Communication on Historical Standards
for Service of Process—Shamrock Development v. Smith, 36
WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 241 (2009) (Minnesota).
John M. Murphy III, Note, From Snail Mail to E-Mail: The
Steady Evolution of Service of Process, 19 ST. JOHN’S J. LEGAL
COMMENT. 73 (2004) (Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International
Interlink).
David P. Stewart & Anna Conley, E-Mail Service on Foreign Defendants: Time for an International Approach?, 38 GEO. J. INT’L
L. 755 (2007).
Maria N. Vernace, Comment, E-Mailing Service of Process: It’s a
Shoe-In!, 36 UWLA L. REV. 274 (2005) (9th Cir.).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 30
14-JUN-10
13:41
246 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Spoliation of Evidence
Gal Davidovitch, Comment, Why Rule 37(e) Does Not Create a
New Safe Harbor for Electronic Evidence Spoliation, 38 SETON
HALL L. REV. 1131 (2008) (maintaining that the circumstances to
which Rule 37(e) applies are narrow and evaluating the “routine,” “exceptional circumstances,” and “good faith” provisions
of the rule).
Rena Durrant, Spoliation of Discoverable Electronic Evidence, 38
LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1803 (2005) (explaining when the duty to preserve electronic evidence arises, summarizing obligations to preserve, discussing the recovery of deleted data, and reviewing the
range of sanctions courts impose for spoliation).
Daniel Renwick Hodgman, Comment, A Port in the Storm?: The
Problematic and Shallow Safe Harbor for Electronic Discovery,
101 NW. U. L. REV. 259 (2007) (explaining the safe harbor provision for inadvertent destruction of discoverable electronic
documents).
Lloyd S. van Oostenrijk, Comment, Paper or Plastic?: Electronic
Discovery and Spoliation in the Digital Age, 42 HOUS. L. REV.
1163 (2005) (evaluating the proposed federal rules, damages for
spoliation, and discovery costs).
____________________
Thomas G. Fischer, Annotation, Intentional Spoliation of Evidence, Interfering with Prospective Civil Action, as Actionable, 70
A.L.R. 4TH 984 (1989 & Supp. 2006).
Linda C. Fowler, Spoliation: Tort Liability for Missing Evidence,
53 LA. B.J. 427 (Apr./May 2006) (Louisiana).
T. Patrick Gumkowski, Comment, Protecting the Integrity of the
Rhode Island Judicial System and Assuring an Adequate Remedy
for Victims of Spoliation: Why an Independent Cause of Action
for Spoliation of Evidence Is the Solution, 10 ROGER WILLIAMS
U. L. REV. 795 (2005) (Rhode Island).
Jason B. Hendren, Spoliation of Evidence: Why This Evidentiary
Concept Should Not Be Transformed Into Separate Causes of Action, 27 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 281 (2005).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
Vol. 23, 2010
unknown
Seq: 31
Annotated Bibliography
14-JUN-10
13:41
247
David Paul Horowitz, Spoliation . . . Not Spoilation, 78 N.Y. ST.
B.J. 17 (Apr. 2006) (New York).
Nathan Drew Larsen, Evaluating the Proposed Changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37: Spoliation, Routine Operation
and the Rules Enabling Act, 4 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. 212
(2006).
Matthew S. Makara, Note, My Dog Ate My Email: Creating a
Comprehensive Adverse Inference Instruction Standard for Spoliation of Electronic Evidence, 42 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 687 (2009).
Michael R. Nelson & Mark H. Rosenberg, A Duty Everlasting:
The Perils of Applying Traditional Doctrines of Spoliation to
Electronic Discovery, 12 RICH J.L. & TECH. 14 (Spring 2006).
Michael D. Starks, Deconstructing Damages for Destruction of
Evidence: Martino Eradicates the First-party Tort of Spoliation of
Evidence, 80 FLA. B.J. 36 (Aug. 2006) (Florida).
Brian F. Stayton & Jesse L. Ray, Spoliation of Evidence: An
Overview and Practical Suggestions, 24 CONSTRUCTION LAW. 31
(Winter 2004).
Rachel L. Sykes, A Phantom Menace: Spoliation of Evidence in
Idaho Civil Cases, 42 IDAHO L. REV. 821 (2006) (Idaho).
Benjamin J. Vernia, Annotation, Negligent Spoliation of Evidence, Interfering with Prospective Civil Action, as Actionable,
101 A.L.R. 5TH 61 (2002 & Supp. 2006).
Irene C. Warshauer, Electronic Discovery in Arbitration: Privilege Issues and Spoliation of Evidence, 61 DISP. RESOL. J. 9 (Jan.
2007).
Margaret Z. Johns, Using Federal Civil Rights Statutes to Right
the Wrong of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Cases in State Court, 28
AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 279 (2004).
\\server05\productn\M\MAT\23-1\MAT105.txt
unknown
Seq: 32
14-JUN-10
13:41