1 / 22

E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb

E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb. What is E-Discovery?. E-Discovery refers to the rules governing the discovery and disclosure of electronic data, or electronically-stored information (ESI), contained within any possible medium. Why need to know about E-Discovery?.

tnichole
Download Presentation

E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation • By • Tracy Vigness Kolb

  2. What is E-Discovery? • E-Discovery refers to the rules governing the discovery and disclosure of electronic data, or electronically-stored information (ESI), contained within any possible medium

  3. Why need to know about E-Discovery? • Health care providers are parties to litigation • Medical negligence lawsuits • Electronic discovery applies to parties • Health care providers are non-parties to litigation but are • asked to produce information • Requests for medical records • Electronic discovery requests can be made on a non-party

  4. The Basics to Prepare/Plan for E-Discovery • Data analysis/source mapping • Document retention plan • Litigation hold procedure • Consequences

  5. The E-Discovery Rules • Party to Litigation • Rule 26, North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure (General • Provisions Governing Discovery) • Forms of discovery include depositions, written • interrogatories, document requests

  6. Scope of discovery (As proposed amended to be effective • October 1, 2012) • “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter • that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including the • existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of • any documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible • things and the identity and location of persons who know of any • discoverable matter.” • “Electronically stored information includes reasonably accessible • metadata that will enable the discovering party to have the • ability to access such information as to the date sent, date • received, author, and recipients.” • Does not include other metadata unless the parties • agree otherwise or the court orders otherwise

  7. Rule 26 Discovery Meeting, Conference, Plan (As • proposed amended to be effective October 1, 2012) • Initial discovery meeting may include the subject of • discovery of ESI • Contents of discovery plan must include a proposed plan • and schedule of discovery, including the discovery of ESI • if appropriate

  8. Elements of plan with respect to ESI • A reference to the preservation of ESI • The media form, format or procedures by which ESI will be produced • The allocation of the costs of preservation, production, and, • if necessary, restoration of ESI • The method for asserting or preserving claims of privilege or • of protection of ESI as trial preparation materials • The method for asserting or preserving confidentiality and • proprietary status of ESI

  9. Costs of E-Discovery • Significant to Outrageous • Presumption is the responding party must bear the expense of complying • with discovery requests • Cost shifting may be considered when E-discovery imposes “undue • burden or expense” on responding party • Protecting Privilege • Clawback agreement • Parties’ agreement on procedure to assert privilege claims after • inadvertent production • Doesn’t ensure haven’t waived privilege • Depends on jurisdiction

  10. Non-Party to Litigation • Rule 45, North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure (Subpoena) • Command production of “designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s possession, custody or control . . .” • N.D.C.C. § 23-12-14(2) (Copies of medical records and medical bills) • Upon request for medical records and/or medical bills with the signed • authorization of the patient, the health care provider shall provide the • requested records and bills • Paper or electronic • HIPAA/HITECH compliance issues

  11. E-Discovery Obligations • Parties have a duty to preserve evidence when litigation is reasonably anticipated • Document retention/destruction plan • Must adopt written records management policy • Must follow that policy • Must address all the different types of data • The plan must contemplate the existing obligations under state • and federal law • Someone must be accountable to enact the plan

  12. To develop plan, conduct data analysis/source mapping • Where is all the ESI? • Where is it stored, how it is stored, when it is deleted, and to what • extent it is accessible • Potential electronic storage sites (*Servers and computers with • different programs and access for medical records, radiology • records, human resource information, billing information, emails, • cell phones, and PDAs) • Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, a party must suspend its • routine document retention and destruction practices and put in place • a “litigation hold” to ensure the preservation of relevant ESI and • documents

  13. Litigation Hold • An order to preserve relevant information • Any automatic process that might destroy this data must be halted • (auto-deletion, auto-archiving, back up recycling) • The data must be “frozen” so that it can no longer be changed • All users must be notified that they cannot manually delete or modify this information

  14. The litigation hold applies to information that is “reasonably accessible” • What is reasonably accessible? • Information is “accessible” if stored in a readily usable format • It does not need to be restored or otherwise manipulated to be usable • Information is “inaccessible” if it is not readily usable • General rule: does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those • typically maintained solely for purpose of disaster recovery and which • may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the party’s • policies) • But if backup tapes are accessible (i.e. actively used for information retrieval), they likely would be subject to the litigation hold

  15. Metadata • Data within data • The “electronic footprint” • Discoverable if “reasonably accessible”

  16. To implement a litigation hold, engage counsel because E-Discovery obligations • apply to both client and counsel • Together, make certain all sources of potentially relevant information • are identified and placed “on hold” • All “key players” are identified and instructed to comply with litigation hold • “Key players” are persons likely to have relevant information • Ensure the information is preserved and, if necessary, produced in discovery • Monitor continuing obligation to preserve, collect and produce

  17. Consequences of failure to properly preserve relevant EST • Spoliation claim, adverse inference and/or sanctions for discovery violations • Spoliation is the destruction of or failure to preserve probative evidence • Paper spoliation • Usually intentional destruction of relevant evidence • Leads to an “adverse inference” or other sanctions Keen v. Brigham and • Women’s Hospital, Inc., 786 N.E.2d 824 (Mass. 2003) • Defendant hospital defaulted for losing the hospital chart of newborn

  18. Adverse inference • Applies when a party lost/destroyed potentially relevant • evidence with no reasonable explanation. Jury is • instructed it may infer the evidence was unfavorable to • that party • In practice, often ends the litigation

  19. Electronic spoliation • Much easier to do • Mass spoliation at the click of a mouse • Old data is destroyed every day by the routine operation of most systems • Email system is set to automatically delete messages if you • reach a certain storage limit • Federal case law often does not require intent • Accidental destruction can result in adverse inference instruction • No North Dakota cases involving E-Discovery • Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, 2012 ND 175

  20. Safe Harbor • Rule 37(f), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure • “Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” • Essential to have records management policy

  21. Questions? Thanks! Tracy Vigness Kolb Zuger Kirmis & Smith PO Box 1695 316 N. 5th Street Bismarck ND  58502 (701)223-2711 tkolb@zkslaw.com

More Related