the canadian patent act

the canadian patent act
The law as a means of settling administrative disputes and criminal accountability, must be able to adapt to revolutions of industry or technology. We are currently in the years after the beginning of a technological revolution, which only grow and continue to change the way people live their lives. Computer and Internet use, the way that people and companies think and act. In today's judiciary, a case (either civil or criminal) is often detected by the evidence and before the courts. As computers have the integral components of a successful business operation, the records on the computer will become increasingly difficult to discover. Not only because of the difficulty of access to an enemy of the computer records, but also because many experienced lawyers, not even know what to see if they have access.

To the confusion is a lack of leadership and procedural justice. New methods of discovery have hindered older, traditional agents, which with them the knowledge and experience from the time of paper and pen. The old rules are outdated, and in today's world, if you can not keep up with the technology and developments in the law, then left as ineffectual as the paper and pen you hold in your hands.

In response to the increased requirements for the structure of the e-discovery, the ABA has proposed new amendments to Civil Discovery Standards relating to the use of e-discovery. In part, these proposed changes are designed to provide guidelines for the maintenance of evidence, destruction and production.

Electronic evidence presents many issues not previously with the traditional forms of evidence. Certain forms of electronic evidence can be misleading and vulnerability of one party or the other, because a part of the evidence can only be a first draft of a document with information required for the discharge of liability. From a simple printout of electronic evidence, it can be extremely difficult to determine whether evidence that the first or final draft, and whether that evidence has an impact on the dispute. In many ways electronic evidence for an easier access because there is no need to search through cumbersome boxes of paper, but the actual implementation of the discovery can exponentially increase the cost of production and the discovery of parties.

It takes time to search for traces of information in a corporate network. From the plaintiff's view, electronic evidence is difficult to destroy because it is an extremely complex and demanding process completely removed an electronic signature and metadata associated with files. As shown, electronic evidence can be sometimes more difficult to find, but conversely, it is also harder to destroy. This combination of properties can be a process that is more just in theory, is actually more cumbersome and costly when actually put into practice.

In response to this growing concern, as part of the proposed amendments, the ABA has focused on e-discovery issues of pre-trial conferences and electronically stored information that a party's failure to comply with discovery or to cooperate. Unnerving to many plaintiff attorneys, Amendment 37 (f), which provides that:

"" Unless a court order to the preservation of electronically stored information is violated, the court may not impose sanctions under these rules for a party if such information is lost, because the routine operations of the electronic information system, if the party seeking the appropriate measures to obtain identifiable information. "

This is perhaps the most annoying (at least for the plaintiff's lawyers), because it actually creates a safe harbor for the destruction of electronic evidence. Sanctions would be barred if the information is destroyed as a result of routine destruction practices. The rule mentions nothing of what a reasonable destruction practice is or whether a party must freeze those practices, if it learns that there is a potential for litigation.

Other important changes are:

* Article 33 (d). Under the traditional Rule 33, a party responding to a survey of business records could be used as a substitute for the explicit reference to the survey. Amended Article 33 (d), the party is allowed to react, electronic data and records to the interrogatories, unless the requesting party can easily identify and locate the information sought.
* Article 34 (b). The new proposed amendments do not require a lawyer to choose a specific format of evidence to the discovery requests, but the mere mention of proposing a policy in favor of electronic evidence. When a requested production is not specified, the responding party of evidence in the manner in which that information is usually maintained or, alternatively, in a form that is relatively comfortable and easy to use.
* Article 26 (b) (5) (B). This amendment relates to the inadvertent production of privileged or protected information. This rule is a party that inadvertently disclosed privileged information to it from the accidental receiving party unless that party can demonstrate that they have a right to this information.
* Article 45 This amendment to Article 45 so that essentially parties subpoena electronically stored data due to one of the other amendments adopted in the Rules.


These are not only the proposed changes, but this brief summary of the proposed changes is a good demonstration of the growing preference for electronic discovery. The legal world is changing and the lawyers who are unable to cope with the changes in the dust. This step of the ABA should be considered as a sign of the lawyers of fear and further developments in the law. Electronic discovery is here to stay, as opposed to those who refuse to welcome the changes to the judicial process.

This article was written by Nicholas Deleault, a Franklin Pierce Law Student. Nicholas writes select legal articles for the law firm Goldstien and Clegg, a Massachusetts company Cyberlaw.