Court Opinion

ID: 9688127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:33:03.483289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:08.974416
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 58. (concurring). I write separately. I am concerned that the majority opinion addresses many issues, but comes to few answers that will provide guidance to the litigants and the John Doe judge.
¶ 59. The opinion does conclusively decide that the subpoena is overbroad. The majority opinion discusses the Fourth Amendment at length, but this discussion is not based on any arguments briefed by the parties and is unnecessary to the holding of the case. While I join the court in its conclusion to quash the subpoena, I do not join the discussion regarding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
¶ 60. I also write to comment on the issue of production of electronic information. This case involves a subpoena for electronic information and raises many of the same kinds of issues that are raised in discovery of electronic information.
¶ 61. In 2004, most information is kept in digital form, and discovery, preservation, and production of electronic information is one of the leading legal issues facing not only corporate America but also government. Reform in discovery, including electronic discovery, is a priority in several jurisdictions. This court has not previously confronted the issue of discovery of electronic data.
¶ 62. Electronic discovery (or production of electronic information) poses the same problems as conventional discovery (and production) of documents, but also poses unique problems. The volume, number of *245storage locations, and data volatility of electronically stored information are significantly greater than those of paper documents. In addition, electronic information contains non-traditional types of data including meta-data, system data, and "deleted" data. Furthermore, the costs of locating, reviewing, and preparing digital files for production may be much greater than in conventional discovery proceedings. These complexities can lead, as they have in the present case, to disputes about the scope of discovery (or production), the form of production, and the protection of privileged information.
¶ 63. The following are recurring themes in the literature on electronic document production: lawyers and judges must become better educated about electronic information and discovery thereof; the parties must meet, confer, and seek to identify the information management system, the people knowledgeable about the system, what information is and is not accessible, and the scope of each party's rights and responsibilities; discovery (production) requests should be as clear as possible about the data being requested; responding parties are in the best position to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronic data; and trial courts may need to be more active in managing electronic discovery and production than in managing conventional discovery or production of information, especially when parties cannot agree about the scope of the request for electronic information. The literature on electronic discovery is growing both in print and on the Internet.
*246¶ 64. The majority opinion does not recognize the special problems in production of electronic information or give guidance to the judge or the parties about these unique issues.
¶ 65. For the reasons set forth, I write separately.