ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Ikuoedisclosure Uk

?
?
I
Ikuo Takahashi

This document discusses e-discovery in UK litigation and compares it to procedures in Japan. Key points: - UK litigation requires full disclosure of all material evidence by both parties. This contrasts with Japan which does not have an automatic discovery process. - Differences in civil procedure laws around document protection and data privacy can cause conflicts in cross-border e-discovery. - Japanese companies may have weaknesses in areas like retention policies and cultural perspectives that make adapting to rigorous e-discovery standards challenging. Cooperation will be needed to resolve conflicts that arise from these differences.

1 of 13
Download to read offline
E-Disclosure in UK ¡¸Ó¢¹úe¥Ç¥£¥¹¥¯¥í©`¥¸¥ã¤ÎÀí½â¤Î¤¿¤á¤Ë¡¹ Ikuo Takahashi Bengoshi-BLT Legal Chambers
Structure of Litigation ÔVÔA¤Î˜‹Ôì Truth No Jury -Civil evidence evidence
Common Law Country (Comparison of basic concept) ? ¡°Cards face up on the ? Civil Procedure Law in table¡± Japan ¨C ¡°In plain language, ¨C No automatic discovery litigation in this country ¡¯ ? No exchange of list of cards face up on the documents. table¡¯(..)It is design to do ? Interrogatory is nor so real justice(..)¡± Sir John popular. Donaldson M.R.in Davis v ? Requesting party should Eli Lily & co.[1987] specify the documents. ¨C ¡°There shall be full ¨C Broad exceptions disclosure of all evidence ¨C Misunderstanding ¨C material and necessary in Adversarial system(µ±ÊÂÕß the prosecution or defense Ö÷Áx) of action¡±(CPLR3101(a)) ¨C ¡°wild west shooting¡±
Legal issues ? e-disclosure ¨C Effective to data all over the world ? ? Difference of Civil Procedure law ? Conflict ? Japanese companies ¨C Not accustomed to e-discovery ? Many weak points
Effective to data all over the world(?) ? Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais SA,242 F.R.D 199(E.D.N.Y 2007) ¨C Judge Kiyo Matsumoto ? ¡±Lawyers are now responsible for litigation without borders and discovery without language barriers.¡±
Difference of Civil Procedure law-- Broad protection ¡°for private use¡± ? CPL Article 220 ? ¡°Ringi¡± document is (Obligation to Submit usually protected from Document) production ? Protection ¨C (d) A document prepared exclusively for use by the holder thereof (excluding a document held by the State or a local public entity, which is used by a public officer for an organizational purpose).
Conflict of Civil procedure ? Data protection ¨C Online review ¡±Transfer¡± or not ? Hague Convention ¨C Hague Convention(CP 1954 ,service 1965,Evidence 1971 (Japan x) more) ? Exclusive or not ? Sovereign ¨C Marc Rich ? Blocking Statute ¨C France, UK, China, Australia, South Africa ¨C MAAF case ? French lawyer was sentenced guilty to pay Ten Thousand Euros- Obstructing Justice ¨C Cour de Cassation Chambre Criminelle [Cass. Crim.], Paris, Dec. 12, 2007, Juris-Data no. 2007-332254
Not accustomed to e-discovery ? Many weak points ¨C Retention policy does not develop so well ? JP-No discovery rule as US ? Cannot respond litigation hold so well ¨C Cultural(?) points ? Do not know how rigid e-discovery rule. ¨C Erase private e-mails ? Japanese Executives do not like depositions. ? Prefer settlement-¡±Cooperation culture¡±. Do not strategic perspective ¨C not early case assessment ? No systematic information cooperation between IT department and Legal department ? Japanese people like to take notes. write unnecessary personal impression.
E-Discovery reference Model £¨E¥Ç¥£¥¹¥«¥Ð¥ê²ÎÕÕ¥â¥Ç¥ë) Process Àí preser vation ±£È« Information Identifica Produc presen management tion Review tion tation Çéˆó¹ÜÀí ×R„e ¥ì¥Ó¥å©` ¥×¥ì¥¼ Ìá³ö Collect ¥ó ion …§¼¯ Analysis ·ÖÎö
Differences between US and UK ? Scope? ? Procedure ? ? Decisions?
References ? Sedona WG6 ¡°Framework for Analysis of Cross-Border Discovery Conflicts: A Practical Guide to Navigating the Competing Currents of International Data Privacy and e- Discovery¡± ¨C http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/mi scFiles/publications_html?grp=wgs160
One more thing
BLT legal Chambers ? Team BLT ¨C Younger lawyers for digital ages ¨C Team of resident lawyers & contract lawyers ? Primera Dougenzaka614 ? 1-15-3,Dougenzaka Shibuya,Tokyo ? ikuo@comit.jp ? Facebook

More Related Content

Ikuoedisclosure Uk

  • 2. Structure of Litigation ÔVÔA¤Î˜‹Ôì Truth No Jury -Civil evidence evidence
  • 3. Common Law Country (Comparison of basic concept) ? ¡°Cards face up on the ? Civil Procedure Law in table¡± Japan ¨C ¡°In plain language, ¨C No automatic discovery litigation in this country ¡¯ ? No exchange of list of cards face up on the documents. table¡¯(..)It is design to do ? Interrogatory is nor so real justice(..)¡± Sir John popular. Donaldson M.R.in Davis v ? Requesting party should Eli Lily & co.[1987] specify the documents. ¨C ¡°There shall be full ¨C Broad exceptions disclosure of all evidence ¨C Misunderstanding ¨C material and necessary in Adversarial system(µ±ÊÂÕß the prosecution or defense Ö÷Áx) of action¡±(CPLR3101(a)) ¨C ¡°wild west shooting¡±
  • 4. Legal issues ? e-disclosure ¨C Effective to data all over the world ? ? Difference of Civil Procedure law ? Conflict ? Japanese companies ¨C Not accustomed to e-discovery ? Many weak points
  • 5. Effective to data all over the world(?) ? Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais SA,242 F.R.D 199(E.D.N.Y 2007) ¨C Judge Kiyo Matsumoto ? ¡±Lawyers are now responsible for litigation without borders and discovery without language barriers.¡±
  • 6. Difference of Civil Procedure law-- Broad protection ¡°for private use¡± ? CPL Article 220 ? ¡°Ringi¡± document is (Obligation to Submit usually protected from Document) production ? Protection ¨C (d) A document prepared exclusively for use by the holder thereof (excluding a document held by the State or a local public entity, which is used by a public officer for an organizational purpose).
  • 7. Conflict of Civil procedure ? Data protection ¨C Online review ¡±Transfer¡± or not ? Hague Convention ¨C Hague Convention(CP 1954 ,service 1965,Evidence 1971 (Japan x) more) ? Exclusive or not ? Sovereign ¨C Marc Rich ? Blocking Statute ¨C France, UK, China, Australia, South Africa ¨C MAAF case ? French lawyer was sentenced guilty to pay Ten Thousand Euros- Obstructing Justice ¨C Cour de Cassation Chambre Criminelle [Cass. Crim.], Paris, Dec. 12, 2007, Juris-Data no. 2007-332254
  • 8. Not accustomed to e-discovery ? Many weak points ¨C Retention policy does not develop so well ? JP-No discovery rule as US ? Cannot respond litigation hold so well ¨C Cultural(?) points ? Do not know how rigid e-discovery rule. ¨C Erase private e-mails ? Japanese Executives do not like depositions. ? Prefer settlement-¡±Cooperation culture¡±. Do not strategic perspective ¨C not early case assessment ? No systematic information cooperation between IT department and Legal department ? Japanese people like to take notes. write unnecessary personal impression.
  • 9. E-Discovery reference Model £¨E¥Ç¥£¥¹¥«¥Ð¥ê²ÎÕÕ¥â¥Ç¥ë) Process Àí preser vation ±£È« Information Identifica Produc presen management tion Review tion tation Çéˆó¹ÜÀí ×R„e ¥ì¥Ó¥å©` ¥×¥ì¥¼ Ìá³ö Collect ¥ó ion …§¼¯ Analysis ·ÖÎö
  • 10. Differences between US and UK ? Scope? ? Procedure ? ? Decisions?
  • 11. References ? Sedona WG6 ¡°Framework for Analysis of Cross-Border Discovery Conflicts: A Practical Guide to Navigating the Competing Currents of International Data Privacy and e- Discovery¡± ¨C http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/mi scFiles/publications_html?grp=wgs160
  • 13. BLT legal Chambers ? Team BLT ¨C Younger lawyers for digital ages ¨C Team of resident lawyers & contract lawyers ? Primera Dougenzaka614 ? 1-15-3,Dougenzaka Shibuya,Tokyo ? ikuo@comit.jp ? Facebook