Your Name*:
Your Email*:
Recipients Name*:
Recipients Email*:
Comments:
CC Yourself:
You are not signed in and can only download a maximum of 10 documents.

ITEMS TO DOWNLOAD
Items to Download:  |  Size: 0Kb
Project Map and Workflow
Comprehensive Reference guide of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure related to e-discovery.
Find a Discovery Specialist
Online Law Library

Federal District Courts



Use the drop down box below the navigate Federal District Court Rules by state.



Alaska
District of Alaska
Local Form 26(f): Scheduling and Planning Conference Report (Section 4(B) on handling the disclosure and discovery of electronically stored information)
Local Rule 16.1 Pre-Trial Procedures (Section 16(b)(1)


Arkansas
Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas
Local Rule 26.1 Outline for Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report


California
Northern District of California
Standing Order For All Judges Of The Northern District Of California: Contents Of Joint Case Management Statement (Sections 6 and 8)
Local Rule 16-9 Case Management Statement and Proposed Order (counsel must file a Joint Case Management Statement addressing all topics in Standing Order)


Connecticut
District of Connecticut
January 19, 2007 Order Amending Local Rules (Rule 26(b)(2) and (4) and Rule 37(b)(2).
Local Rules 16(b), 26, 37 and Form 26(F) (Rules 16(b), 26, 27 and Form 26(F))


Florida
Middle District of Florida
Civil Discovery Practice Handbook (Section VII "Technology" A: Preserving and Producing Electronic Information")
Southern District of Florida
Rule 16.1 Pretrial Procedure in Civil Actions
Rule 26.1 Discovery and Discovery Material (Civil)
Appendix A: Discovery Practices Handbook


Georgia
Southern District of Georgia
Rule 26(f) Report


Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Uniform Case Management Plan (Section III(K) discussing preservation and disclosure of electronically stored information)
Rule 16.1 Pretrial Procedures


New Jersey
District of New Jersey
Local Rule 26.1 Discovery (Section d)

West Virginia
Southern District of West Virginia
Report of Parties' Planning Meeting
Local Rule 16.1 Scheduling Conferences


Wyoming
District of Wyoming
Local Rule 26.1 Discovery and Appendix D: Rule 26 Conference Checklist


Seventh Circuit
Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program


Ninth Circuit
A release from the Ninth Circuit Office of Circuit Executive Public Information Office has reported that on May 25, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council agreed to circulate for preliminary review proposed model rules on electronic discovery for U.S. District Courts within the Ninth Circuit, which includes nine western states and two Pacific Island territories. The proposed rules will be circulated to the Ninth Circuit's Conference of Chief District Judges and to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference.

According to the release, Chief District Judge David Levi of the Eastern District of California believes the proposed Ninth Circuit rules are "on the same page" as rules proposals recently forwarded to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference by the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Levi chairs the Standing Committee and is on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council.

The proposed local rules governing discovery of electronic data and documents for U.S. District Courts within the Ninth Circuit include:
  • A four-part Rule 1 that covers parties' duty to investigate, duty to notify, duty to meet and confer, and efforts to agree on the scope of electronic data to preserve;
  • A second rule that would limit "the obligation to search for electronic data and documents … to a search of active data that admits of efficient searching and retrieval";
  • A third rule would provide for production of electronic data in electronic form with metadata unless otherwise agreed or ordered;
  • A fourth rule would allow a responding party to conduct an electronic search of its documents; and
  • A fifth rule would provide that in normal circumstances, the responding party would bear the costs of production while the requesting party would bear the costs of obtaining data from "non-active" sources.