Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m M A Y 2 0 1 5 19 such a thing would consist of is not defined in the principle or the com- mentary. Similarly, principle 7 provides that "a party may use electronic tools and pro- cesses to satisfy its documentary discovery obligations," but leaves the details to the commentary. That commentary is a good start, but sections on keyword searching, the treatment of duplicates, the mecha- nisms of processing electronic informa- tion, and the timing of these processes within the data handling lifecycle need to be expanded. Additionally, the com- mentary needs to distinguish between technology applicable to different kinds of data (text versus non-text), as not all technologies work on non-text data. The expansion of the commentary in principle 7 to address the treatment of social media objects would be welcome, in light of the greater emphasis on these data types in the balance of the document. I have two main critiques of the Prin- ciples 2015 and a further recommenda- tion for Sedona Canada. First, although the revisions are intended to be a guide- line document, they answer the ques- tions of what needs to be done and why, but not the how. For example, parties that want to implement principle 8 and discuss the format of production early in the process are told that native or elec- tronic productions are superior, but are not guided in how to make the change from paper productions. Second, although I have benefitted from the incorporation of the original principles by reference into the Rules of Civil Procedure, I have always felt a bit uncomfortable with this. In effect, this document could be substantially revised at any time, including through a funda- mental change to the core principles, and this could have an impact on the imple- mentation of discovery rules in Ontario. My misgivings are counterbalanced by my recognition that Sedona Canada consists of knowledgeable persons who can move a bit faster than the Ontario Civil Rules Committee. All should acknowledge the efforts of the editorial team: Susan Nickle served as the editor-in-chief and Anne Glover, Crystal O'Donnell, and David Sharpe were the contributing editors. Listed as contributors are Colin Campbell, Roger B. Campbell, Robert Deane, Karen Groulx, David Outerbridge, James Swan- son, and Susan Wortzman. However, others also contributed to this effort, and it's odd these aren't acknowledged. For example, several passages I drafted in April 2013 appear to be incorporated almost verbatim into the Principles 2015, as do passages I believe were drafted by others not listed in the credits. I know if it has not been the prac- tice of the Sedona Conference groups to give credit to all volunteers, only those selected for editorial committees, but it may be time for both Sedona Canada and The Sedona Conference to revisit that practice. It's classier to acknowledge all volunteer contributions, and doing so may also enhance volunteer participation and retention. Dera J. Nevin is director of e-discovery services at Proskauer Rose LLP. The opin- ions expressed in this article are her own. Because business issues are legal issues. So if you want to get ahead in business, get the degree that gets you there faster. ONE YEAR – PART - TIME – NO THESIS FOR L AWYERS AND NON - LAWYERS law.utoronto.ca/ExecutiveLLM GPLLM Global Professional Master of Laws [Get a Master of Laws] Untitled-1 1 2015-02-25 8:38 AM

• Cover