subscribe to ENR magazine subscribe
contact us
advertise
careers industry jobs
events events
FAQ
Mcgraw Hill Construction
ENR Logo
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
& receive immediate web access
comment

Move To Limit the Cost of E-Discovery in Lawsuits Gains Support

Text size: A A
[ Page 1 of 2 ]
----- Advertising -----

Is it possible to save on costly “e-discovery?”

Some attorneys are testing ways to head off runaway legal costs in construction lawsuits, including contract clauses ruling out emails as discoverable evidence.

The idea is inviting because one of the biggest risks in a lawsuit is the size of the invoice that arrives from your own attorney.

Propelled by the explosive growth of email, litigation costs today run 20% to 30% higher than six years ago, say attorneys and insurance agents. And recession hasn’t cut litigation and may actually provide more incentives for lawsuits, they say.

Project team members already understand that the ballooning number emails and the voluminous project documentation puts construction in the high-volume category. Even less-senior members of a project team can accumulate over 10,000 emails in a multiyear project.

To try to limit costs for construction companies and their insurers, some attorneys are inserting special clauses in contracts, when they can, designed to eliminate sifting email evidence in a lawsuit.

Ken Rubinstein, an attorney with Preti Flaherty in Boston, says he has “talked to colleagues that put in language saying that even if there’s litigation, parties’ emails won’t be discoverable.”

“And the judge will respect it,” he says. “If both parties agree in advance, you can do it in the contract.”

Rubinstein says he has not yet used such clauses.

Other attorneys are skeptical about whether email-eliminating clauses can be used widely. “If you’re in court, you have to play by the court’s rules,” says one experienced construction attorney. “I’m not sure they would respect” those kind of contract clauses, he says. “It depends on the case, too.”

There are cases, attorneys say, where one side feels it must have the other side’s documents to win.

Controlling costs can be much more difficult in defect cases involving insurance company attorneys, another attorney suggests. The insurers tend to use busy lawyers accustomed to spending whatever is necessary to win without regard to time or cost, he says.  “They are more inclined to delay and won’t even get around to looking at your case until four months are gone by, then won’t evaluate until eight months have gone by,” says the attorney. “The only thing that moves those attorneys is the impending trial date.”

Keywords:

[ Page 1 of 2 ]
----- Advertising -----
  Blogs: ENR Staff   Blogs: Other Voices  
Critical Path: ENR's editors and bloggers deliver their insights, opinions, cool-headed analysis and hot-headed rantings
Project Leads/Pulse

Gives readers a glimpse of who is planning and constructing some of the largest projects throughout the U.S. Much information for pulse is derived from McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge.

For more information on a project in Pulse that has a DR#, or for general information on Dodge products and services, please visit our Website at www.dodge.construction.com.

Information is provided on construction projects in following stages in each issue of ENR: Planning, Contracts/Bids/Proposals and Bid/Proposal Dates.

View all Project Leads/Pulse »

 Reader Comments:

Sign in to Comment

To write a comment about this story, please sign in. If this is your first time commenting on this site, you will be required to fill out a brief registration form. Your public username will be the beginning of the email address that you enter into the form (everything before the @ symbol). Other than that, none of the information that you enter will be publically displayed.

We welcome comments from all points of view. Off-topic or abusive comments, however, will be removed at the editors’ discretion.