Practice News

On May 29, and effective July 1, the Illinois Supreme Court amended Supreme Court Rules 201 and 214 to make discovery of electronically stored information, or ESI, more efficient. Among other things, the changes empower courts to deny ESI discovery requests that are too burdensome, and they remove the outdated (and often ignored) requirement that ESI be produced in print form.

Rule 201 as amended expressly discourages discovery requests that are “disproportionate in terms of burden or expense” and specifies that a “court may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit”….The amendments also add a definition of ESI to the court’s discovery rules for the first time.

Rule 214 was revised to provide that “if a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” It also eliminates the requirement that ESI be “produce[d]…in printed form”….

Timothy Chorvat of Jenner & Block, chair of the ISBA’s Civil Practice and Procedure Section, said the amendments are “important and welcome reforms to the procedures governing discovery of ESI. Computer data makes up an ever-increasing proportion of the information that parties exchange in discovery, and the new rules will assist parties to effectively manage the production of electronically stored information while at the same time providing protections against disproportionate burdens and costs.”

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am the newly elected managing partner of 12 attorney business transactional firm in St. Louis. The firm is trying to implement a more disciplined approach to financial management. I have been charged with developing our first budget and I am having difficulties due to the overall structure of our general ledger. Our system was setup by our outside accountant and the expense accounts lump too many expenses into too few categories. Do you have any suggestions?

The federal appeals courts based in Chicago and St. Louis are seeking an attorney to coordinate budgeting for private lawyers appointed under the Criminal Justice Act to represent indigent defendants.

The case-budgeting attorney will work with judges, defense counsel and court officials to recommend budgeting procedures and policies and to help draft forms used by CJA lawyers handling capital and other high-cost cases. The attorney also will develop case budgets and maintain a central database of the budgets and expenditures for CJA lawyers.

The attorney will be based in Chicago but will travel to locations within the 7th and 8th circuits. The 7th Circuit covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, while the 8th Circuit covers Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

The case-budgeting attorney will be appointed to a three-year term, which could be extended. The salary is $100,690 to $157,000, depending on the attorney’s experience and qualifications.

An application form is available on the 7th Circuit’s website at ca7.uscourts.gov and the 8th circuit’s website at ca8.uscourts.gov. The form is due by June 12.

Applications should be sent to the 7th Circuit’s executive, Collins T. Fitzpatrick, 219 S. Dearborn St., Room 2780, Chicago, IL 60604.

ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews legislation in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. In this episode he covers Administrative review and attorney’s fees (Senate Bill 2829), Condominium Property Act (House Bill 4783), Presumptively void transfers (Senate Bill 1048), FOIA (House Bill 3796), The Residential Real Property Disclosure Act (Senate Bill 2597), Common Interest Community Association Act (Senate Bill 3057) and Service of process. (Senate Bill 3286). More information on each bill is available below the video.