Rule 34 – Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

Amendments Effective Dec. 1, 2015

Amendments | Summary of Changes | Committee Note | Complete Amended Rule | Additional Resources Rule 34 Amendments in Complete Rule: (b)(2)(A) | (b)(2)(B) | (b)(2)(C)


 

Amended Rule 34

* * * * *

(b) Procedure.

* * * * *

(2) Responses and Objections.

(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served or — if the request was delivered under Rule 26(d)(2) — within 30 days after the parties’ first Rule 26(f) conference. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.[CN 1]

(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objectionwith specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.[CN 2]  The responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. The production must then be completed no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.[CN 3]

(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.[CN 4]

* * * * *

AmendedEffective
Apr. 29, 2015Dec. 1, 2015
Apr. 30, 2007Dec. 1, 2007
Apr. 12, 2006Dec. 1, 2006
Apr. 22, 1993Dec. 1, 1993
Apr. 30, 1991Dec. 1, 1991
Mar. 2, 1987Aug. 1, 1987
Apr. 29, 1980Aug. 1, 1980
Mar. 30, 1970July 1, 1970
Dec. 27, 1946Mar. 19, 1948

 


Summary of Changes


 

Committee Note

Several amendments are made in Rule 34, aimed at reducing the potential to impose unreasonable burdens by objections to requests to produce.

[CN 1] Rule 34(b)(2)(A) is amended to fit with new Rule 26(d)(2). The time to respond to a Rule 34 request delivered before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference is 30 days after the first Rule 26(f) conference.

[CN 2] Rule 34(b)(2)(B) is amended to require that objections to Rule 34 requests be stated with specificity. This provision adopts the language of Rule 33(b)(4), eliminating any doubt that less specific objections might be suitable under Rule 34. The specificity of the objection ties to the new provision in Rule 34(b)(2)(C) directing that an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection may state that a request is overbroad, but if the objection recognizes that some part of the request is appropriate the objection should state the scope that is not overbroad. Examples would be a statement that the responding party will limit the search to documents or electronically stored information created within a given period of time prior to the events in suit, or to specified sources. When there is such an objection, the statement of what has been withheld can properly identify as matters “withheld” anything beyond the scope of the search specified in the objection.

[CN 3] Rule 34(b)(2)(B) is further amended to reflect the common practice of producing copies of documents or electronically stored information rather than simply permitting inspection. The response to the request must state that copies will be produced. The production must be completed either by the time for inspection specified in the request or by another reasonable time specifically identified in the response. When it is necessary to make the production in stages the response should specify the beginning and end dates of the production.

[CN 4] Rule 34(b)(2)(C) is amended to provide that an objection to a Rule 34 request must state whether anything is being withheld on the basis of the objection. This amendment should end the confusion that frequently arises when a producing party states several objections and still produces information, leaving the requesting party uncertain whether any relevant and responsive information has been withheld on the basis of the objections. The producing party does not need to provide a detailed description or log of all documents withheld, but does need to alert other parties to the fact that documents have been withheld and thereby facilitate an informed discussion of the objection. An objection that states the limits that have controlled the search for responsive and relevant materials qualifies as a statement that the materials have been “withheld.”


Complete Amended Rule 34

Rule 34. Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

(a) IN GENERAL. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control:

(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or

(B) any designated tangible things; or

(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

(b) PROCEDURE.

(1) Contents of the Request. The request:

(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

(B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and

(C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

(2) Responses and Objections.

(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served or — if the request was delivered under Rule 26(d)(2) — within 30 days after the parties’ first Rule 26(f) conference. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objectionwith specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.  The responding party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection. The production must then be completed no later than the time for inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response.

(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

(D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically Stored Information. The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form — or if no form was specified in the request — the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.

(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(c) NONPARTIES. As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.


Additional Resources

[su_tabs][su_tab title=”Articles“]

ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
ArticleAuthorsPublication & DateRules Discussed
4 Times Federal Courts Already Applied the New FRCP Amendments in E-Discovery
(registration required)
Zach Warren, Legaltech NewsLegaltech News, March 2, 2016R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Changes in Federal Rules Result in Reversal of Adverse Inference Sanction: eDiscovery Case Law
Doug Austin (eDiscovery Daily)eDiscovery Daily, February 8, 2016R.37(e)
Preparing for FRCP Changes with EnCase eDiscovery
(registration required)
Guidance SoftwareGuidance Software, December 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Courts Are Starting to Apply and Interpret FRCP Amendments on e-DiscoveryJoshua M. Hummel (Fox Rothschild)The E-Discovery Stage, December 10, 2015R.26(b)(1)
IG And The New FRCP Rules
(registration required)
Jason R. Baron (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)Legaltech news, December 7, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Amendments: A Sensible Approach to Spoliation Sanctions?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, December 4, 2015R.37(e)
The New Federal Rules Are Taking EffectEmily Dimond (Reed Smith)
Courtney Murphy (Reed Smith)
JD Supra Business Advisor, December 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.34(b)(2)
R.37(e)
Everything You Need to Know About The New FRCP AmendmentsJeff Bennion (Estey & Bomberger LLP)Above the Law, December 1, 2015R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
Congratulations! Now what?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, December 1, 2015R.26(f)
R.34
3 Ways FRCP Amendments Could Affect CompaniesRebekah Mintzer (Corporate Counsel)Corporate Counsel, December 1, 2015R.01
R.04
R.34
R.37
Discovery related amendments to the Federal Rules
(subscription required)
David J. Kessler (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Jami Mills Hibbert (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Alexander Steven Altman (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Norton Rose Fulbright website, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.34(2)(A)
R.34(2)(B)
R.34(2)(C)
R.37(e)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Ediscovery
Guide

(download)
Kroll OntrackDecember 2015R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
FRCP Amendments Take Effect, Impacting E-Discovery Practice
(registration required)
H. Christopher Boehning (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
Daniel J. Toal (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Ross M. Gotler)
Lidia M. Kekis (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison)
New York Law Journal, December 1, 2015R.01
R.26
R.37
Early and Often
(download)
Salvatore Mancuso (RVM Enterprises, Inc.)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)(A)
R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)(B)
R.26(f)
Gear Up for Acceleration and Collaboration
(download)
Mark E. McGrath (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)
R.34
Changes Favor Well-Prepared Parties
(download)
Tom Spaulding (Inventus LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.16(b)(1)(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(v)
R.26(f)
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
(download)
Aaron Pierce (LexisNexis Litigation Software)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
Proportion – Not Perfection
(download)
Makenzie Windfelder (McCarter & English LLP)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
No Time to Relax
(download)
Olivia Gerroll (D4, LLC)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.37(e)
The Real Problem: Technology
(download)
Dan Regard (iDiscovery Solutions)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
Proportionality: Old Wine, New Bottle?
(download)
Anthony M. Candido (Clifford Chance LLP)
Sarah A. Sulkowski (Clifford Chance LLP)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
Insofar As Just and Practicable
(download)
Mark Euler (Epiq Systems)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11
A Discovery Sideshow?
(download)
Maureen O’Neill (DiscoverReady)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(C)
R.26(f)
Low Pro le, High Impact
(download)
Aarin Scholz Jenson (BakerHostetler)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(f)
R.34(2)(B)
Relief from ESI Over-Preservation
(download)
Carmen G. McLean (Jones Day)Metropolitan Corporate Counsel Civil Justice Playbook, Perspectives on Procedure, December 2015, Vol. 23, No. 11R.26(b)(1)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
Conclusion: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Are you Ready?Karin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 30, 2015
Important Changes to the Federal RulesAlexander Rothschild (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
Louis Rousseau (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP)
JD Supra Business Advisor, November 30, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1(B)
R.16(b)(2)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
ESI & eDiscovery FRCP changes @ 12/1/15 — while you were leftover-eatingRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)Lexology, November 29, 2015R.04(m)
R.16(b)
R.16(c)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(c)
R.26(d)
R.26(f)
R.34(b)
R.37(e)
Amendments to Federal Civil Rules Governing Discovery and Preservation of ESI Set to Take Effect December 1, 2015Tony Lathrop (Moore & Van Allen PLLC)JD Supra Business Advisor Litigation Blog, November 25, 2015R.01
R.04
R.04(d)
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37(a)
R.37(e)
R.55(c)
R.84
Day 4: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 34 ObjectionsKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 25, 2015R.34
Day 3: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – PreservationKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
R.37(e)
ACEDS Interview: Judge Paul Grimm Explains the New Federal RulesJason KrauseACEDS website, November 24, 2015R.16
R.26
Day 2: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Early Case AssessmentKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 23, 2015R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
Day 1: Your First Five Questions (times four): A Practical Guide to the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – ProportionalityKarin Scholz Jenson (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Gary Levin (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Robert J. Tucker (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
James A. Sherer (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
Jonathan Forman (Baker & Hostetler LLP)
BakerHostetler's Discovery Advocate, November 20, 2015R.26
Wait, What Does Spoliation Mean Now? A Look at the New FRCP Rule 37(e)
(subscription required)
Zach Warren (Legaltech News)Legaltech News, November 17, 2015R.37(e)
A Second Look At “Reasonable Steps”: A New Role For a Familiar eDiscovery ConceptThomas Y. AllmanBloomberg Law, November 13, 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.37(e)
Proportionality and the Scope of Discovery in 2015 Amendments
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, November 6, 2015R.26(b)(1)
A New Era of Cooperation for E-Discovery Rules?
(registration required)
Scott A. Wandstrat (Arnall Golden Gregory)Daily Report, October 9, 2015R.01
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Transmitted to CongressThomas Y. AllmanDefense Counsel Journal, October 2015R.01
R.04(m)
R.16(b)(1)
R.16(b)(2)
R.16(b)(3)(B)
R.16(b)(3)(B)(iii)
R.26(b)(1)
R.26(b)(2)(B)
R.26(b)(2)(C)(iii)
R.26(c)
R.26(c)(1)(B)
R.26(d)(2)
R.26(d)(3)
R.26(f)
R.26(f)(3)(C)
R.26(f)(3)(D)
R.26(g)
R.30
R.30(a)(2)
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.34(b)(2)(A)
R.34(b)(2)(B)
R.34(b)(2)(C)
R.36
R.37(a)(3)(B)(iv)
R.37(b)(2)(A)
R.37(e)
R.37(e)(1)
R.37(e)(2)
R.55(c)
Issuing Timely Litigation Holds in Auto-Delete Environments: The Case Law and the New F.R.C.P. 37
(download)
Anne Kershaw (Knowledge Strategy Solutions)
Brian Ramkissoon
August 11, 2015R.37(e)
Just Follow the Rules! FRCP amendments could be e-discovery game changer
(download)
Jennifer A. Brennan (iDiscovery Solutions)
John M. Facciola (Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge)
Mary M. Rowland (U.S. Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Illinois)
Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, July/August 2015R.16
R.26(b)
R.34
R.37(e)
New Rules, New Opportunities
(download)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 18–25R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
The Nuts and Bolts
(download)
David F. Levi (Duke Law School)
David G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Chilton Varner (King & Spalding)
Derek P. Pullan (Judge, Utah Fourth Judicial District)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 26-34R.16
R.26
R.37
R.84
Rule 37(e) - The New Law of Electronic Spoliation
(download)
Gregory P. Joseph (Hage Aaronson LLC)99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 35-42R.37
From Rule Text to Reality - Achieving Proportionality in Practice
(download)
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 43-46R.01
R.16
R.26
R.34
Guidelines and Practices for Implementing the 2015 Discovery Amendments to Achieve Proportionality
(download)
Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, at 47–60R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
The New ESI Sanctions Framework Under the Proposed Rule 37(e) AmendmentsPhilip Favro (Recommind)Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, Volume XXI, Issue 3, March 20, 2015R.37(e)
The 2015 Civil Rules Package As Approved By the Judicial ConferenceThomas Y. AllmanAmerican Bar Association, March 11, 2015R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.26(b)
R.26(c)
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.36
R.37
R.37(e)
1st Annual Federal Judges Survey: E-Discovery Best Practices & Trends
(download, registration required)
ExterroFebruary 2, 2015R.26(b)(1)
What Does the Future of E-Discovery Look Like Under the (soon to be) Updated FRCP? A ROUNDTABLE PANEL DISCUSSION
(download, registration required)
ExterroNovember 3, 2014
Advisory Committee Makes Unexpected Changes to 37(e), Approves Duke PackageTera E. Brostoff (Bloomberg BNA)Bloomberg BNA, April 11, 2014R.37(e)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Conferences“]
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
ConferenceDate & LocationSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Pittsburgh)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 8:30 am - 12:15 pm Eastern, Pittsburgh
K&L Gates, Federal Rule Changes Affect e-Discovery - Are You Ready This Time? (Seattle)
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 5:30 pm Pacific, Seattle
The American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, Hello “Proportionality,” Goodbye “Reasonably Calculated”: Reinventing Case Management and Discovery Under the ​2015 Civil Rules Amendments
(registration & payment required)
Nov. 10, 2015: New York City
Nov. 12, 2015: Philadelphia
Nov. 12, 2015: Newark
Dec. 3, 2015: St. Louis
Dec. 4, 2015: Atlanta
Dec. 7, 2015: Chicago
Dec. 8, 2015: Washington, DC
Jan. 27, 2016: Los Angeles
Jan. 28, 2016: San Francisco
March 3, 2016: Phoenix
March 4, 2016: Denver
March 31, 2016: Dallas
TBD: Miami
Lee H. Rosenthal (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Texas)
Steven S. Gensler (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Decisions“]
NameRules Discussed
NameRules Discussed
INTERNMATCH, INC. v. NXTBIGTHING, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST. (N.D.CA. Feb. 8, 2016)R.37(e)
Kissing Camels Surgery Center v. Centura Health Corporation (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2016)R.34
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Madsen Med. Inc., No. 13cv2077 BTM(RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016)R.37(e)
Gilead Sciences v. Merck (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016)R.26(b)(1)
CAT3 v. Black Lineage (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016)R.37(e)
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Presentations“]
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
PresentationAuthorRules Discussed
Proposed Civil Rules Amendments
(download)
John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.)R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.34
R.37
R.84
[/su_tab][su_tab title=”Webinars“]
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
WebinarDateSpeakers & ModeratorsRules Discussed
Clear Law Institute webinar, The 2015 Amendments to the FRCP, Part II: Rule 26, Proportionality, Judicial Intervention, and Mastering the Discovery Juggernaut
(registration & payment required)
January 21, 2016, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralKenneth R. Berman, Moderator (Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP)
Charles R. Bennett Jr.
John G. Koeltl (Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)
Martha Mazzone (Fidelity Investments)
Carmen G McLean
R.26(f)
Clear Law Institute webinar, New eDiscovery Federal Rules Changes
(registration & payment required)
December 18, 2015, 2:00 - 3:15 pm CentralRobert D. Brownstone (Fenwick & West LLP)R.26
R.26(f)
R.37(e)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, An Ounce of Prevention: What Patent Litigators and Litigants Need to Know About Amendments to the Federal Rules
(registration & payment required)
December 16, 2015, 10:00 - 11:00 am CentralWilliam Cory Spence (SpencePC)
Kenneth R. Adamo (Kirkland & Ellis LLP)
Bloomberg BNA webinar, Amending the Federal Rules: Intended and Unintended Consequences
(registration required)
December 8, 2015, 12:00 - 1:30 pm CentralRonald Hedges (Ronald J. Hedges LLC)
Craig B. Shaffer (U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Colorado)
Thomas Y. Allman (University of Cincinnati College of Law)
Kenneth J. Withers (The Sedona Conference)
Dena C. Sharp (Girard Gibbs LLP)
Ariana J. Tadler (Milberg LLP)
Nextpoint webinar, Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Winter '15)
(registration required)
December 3, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralJulianne Walsh (Nextpoint)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 3 E-Discovery Trends You Need to Prepare for in 2016
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 4:30 - 5:30 pm CentralBill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Patrick Fuller (Director of Legal Analytics, ELM Solutions)
David Houlihan (Principal Analyst, Blue Hill Research)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, Using Advanced Analytics Techniques to Meet the Proportionality Requirements of the new Federal Rules
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralBob Ambrogi (Legal Journalist and Director of Communications, Catalyst)
George Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
John Tredennick (Founder & CEO, Catalyst)
Gabe Luchetta (Product Manager, Catalyst)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Make Your Job Easier with
E-Discovery Technology

(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 3:00 - 4:00 pm CentralDavid Yerich (Director of E-Discovery, UnitedHealth Group)
Tom Mullane (E-Discovery Specialist, United Technology Corporation)
Tara Jones (Lead Paralegal - E-Discovery and Consumer Litigation, AOL, Inc.)
M. Lee Smith Publishers/BLR E-Discovery Day webinar, Amendments to Federal E-Discovery Rules Take Effect December 1: Are You Ready?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 2:00 - 3:00 pm CentralTom Shaw (Assistant General Counsel; Legal Department, CCA Facility Support Center, Nashville)
W. Russell Taber, III (Attorney; Riley Warnock & Jacobson PLC, in Nashville)
EDRM E-Discovery Day webinar, eMSAT-1: Understand and Acting on the Results
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:30 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Tiana Van Dyk (Litigation Support Manager, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Predictive Coding 3.0
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:30 - 2:00 pm CentralRalph Losey (E-Discovery Blogger / Attorney, e-Discovery Team Blog)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, FRCP Changes: What, Exactly, are Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI?
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 1:00 - 2:00 pm CentralRobert A. Cruz (Senior Director of Information Governance, Actiance, Inc.)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, Taking Advantage of the New FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralGeorge Socha (Co-Founder, EDRM)
Craig Ball (Attorney / E-Discovery Blogger, Ball in Your Court Blog)
Hon. Xavier Rodriguez (District Judge, Western District of Texas)
Actiance E-Discovery Day webinar, A Closer Look at Social Media eDiscovery
(registration required)
December 1, 2015, 11:30 am - 12:30 pm CentralJim Shook (Director of eDiscovery and Compliance Practice, EMC)
Bill Tolson (Director of Product Marketing, Actiance)
Exterro E-Discovery Day webinar, 2015 E-Discovery Case Law: Sanction Cases You Need to Know
(on-demand, registration required)
December 1, 2015, 10:30 - 11:30 am CentralHon. Joy Conti (Chief District Judge, Western District of Pennsylvania)
Gareth Evans (Co-Chair E-Discovery Practice Group, Gibson Dunn)
Bob Rohlf (General Counsel, Exterro)
ABA webinar, The December 1, 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(registration & payment required)
November 23, 2015, 12:00 - 1:00 pm CentralDavid G. Campbell (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Arizona)
John G. Koetl (U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York)
Paul W. Grimm (U.S. District Court Judge, District of Maryland)
EDRM webinar, Proportionality and the New Rules, sponsored by LexisNexis
(on-demand, registration required)
Recorded October 27, 2015John Barkett (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP)
George Socha (EDRM)
Tom Gelbmann (EDRM)
R.01
R.04
R.16
R.26
R.30
R.31
R.33
R.34
R.37
R.84
EDRM webinar, Relativity Fest 2015 Judicial Panel
(on-demand, registration required)
October 12, 2015Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Judge Andrew Peck
Judge Xavier Rodriguez
Judge David Waxse
David Horrigan (moderator)
[/su_tab][/su_tabs]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email