View source for Sedona Canada Principles

<!-- Don't mess with this line! --><!-- Write your article below this line -->
The '''Sedona Canada Principles''' are a set of authoritative guidelines published by The Sedona Conference to aid members of the Canadian legal community involved in the identification, collection, preservation, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI).  The principles were drafted by a small group of lawyers, judges and technologists called the Sedona Working Group 7 or ''Sedona Canada''.  Sedona Canada is an offshoot of The Sedona Conference which is an American “non-profit…research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights.”<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thesedonaconference.org/|title=The Sedona Conference - "Moving the law forward in a reasoned and just way."|work=thesedonaconference.org}}</ref>

==Background==
Civil procedure in Canada is jurisdictional with each province following its own rules of civil procedure.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Civil_Procedure/Rules_by_Province|title=Canadian Civil Procedure/Rules by Province|work=wikibooks.org}}</ref> However, each province must address the fact that due to the advancement of technology the discovery process enshrined in the rules of civil procedure can be potentially derailed due to the sheer volume of electronically stored information (ESI).<ref name="mccarthy.ca">{{cite web|url=http://www.mccarthy.ca/article_detail.aspx?id=4068|title=McCarthy Tétrault - Taming the Beast of Electronic Discovery with Sedona Canada Principles - Article Detail|work=mccarthy.ca}}</ref> When dealing with litigation matters that involve electronically stored information (ESI), the discovery process is commonly called [[Electronic discovery|e-discovery]].  The problems associated with [[Electronic discovery|e-discovery]] in Canada led to the creation of the Sedona Canada Principles.<ref name="mccarthy.ca"/> Rule 29.1.03(4) of the wikibooks:Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refers to the Sedona Canada Principles in referencing Principles re Electronic Discovery although it has been reported that this rule has been largely ignored in practice.<ref name="canlii.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc3670/2010onsc3670.html|title=CanLII - 2010 ONSC 3670 (CanLII)|work=canlii.org}}</ref>

==Summary==
The Sedona Canada Principles largely refer to the processes found in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.edrm.net/resources/edrm-stages-explained|title=EDRM Stages|work=edrm.net}}</ref>

The principles urge proportionality due to the potentially enormous volumes of documents that may be discoverable when dealing with ESI.  They also encourage [[Philosophy:Good faith|good faith]] in the document preservation stage and regular meetings between parties to discuss the scope of the litigation.  Parties are urged to be aware of the potential costs involved in producing relevant ESI but are advised that only reasonably accessible ESI need be produced.  The principles stipulate that parties should not be required to search for or collect deleted material unless there is an agreement or court order related to those terms.  The use of electronic tools and processes such as data sampling and web harvesting are acceptable practices.  Parties are encouraged to agree early in the litigation process on production format required for the exchange of relevant documents as part of the discovery process (native files, pdf, tiff, [[Metadata|metadata]] requirements etc).  Agreements or direction should be sought, if necessary, with respect to privilege or other confidential information related to production of electronic documents and data.  Parties should be aware that legal precedents can be formed as a result of e-discovery practices and sanctions can be considered for a party’s failure to meet their discovery obligations unless it can be demonstrated that the failure was not intentional.  All parties must bear the “reasonable” costs associated with e-discovery but other arrangements can be agreed upon by the parties or by court order.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/sedonacanada/principles_en.html|title=CanLII - The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery (Jan. 2008)|work=canlii.org}}</ref>

==Caselaw==

In ''Warman v. National Post Company'' proportionality was at issue in a case where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for libel.  A motion was brought by the defendant to have the plaintiff provide a mirror image of his hard drive in an effort to prove an internet article was indeed authored by the plaintiff.  Issues of proportionality and the work of the Sedona Conference and Sedona Canada Principles were factored in to the decision to grant the defendant only limited access to the hard drive.<ref name="canlii.org"/>

In ''Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region'' the plaintiff’s legal obligation to produce imaged hard drives is in question.  Justice Conrad refers to the advice of Sedona Canada on proportionality and problems associated with time and expense related to the difficulties associated with electronically stored information.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2008/2008abca219/2008abca219.html|title=CanLII - 2008 ABCA 219 (CanLII)|work=canlii.org}}</ref>

In ''York University v. Michael Markicevic'' Justice Brown specifically refers to the need for the parties to agree upon a formal e-discovery plan to be drafted in consultation with Sedona Canada Principles.<ref name="canlii.org1">{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc378/2013onsc378.html|title=CanLII - 2013 ONSC 378 (CanLII)|work=canlii.org}}</ref>

In ''Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa'' Master MacLeod refers to the need for Sedona Canada principles and states “This is particularly true in the current information age when e-mail is ubiquitous and multiple copies or variants of messages may be held on various kinds of data storage devices including individual hard drives, e-mail and Blackberry servers.  Even documents that ultimately exist in paper form normally begin their life on computers and negotiations frequently involve exchanges of electronic drafts.  To find every scrap of paper and every electronic trace of relevant information has become a nightmarish task that threatens to render any kind of litigation extravagantly expensive.”<ref name="canlii.org1"/>

==Criticism==

Critics of the Sedona Canada Principles believe they should address [[System integrity|system integrity]] and that the true history of any file preserved cannot be identified without proof of the integrity of the electronic record systems management it comes from.<ref>{{cite web|ssrn=2530515|title=The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery|work=ssrn.com}}</ref>

Other criticism is more directed to the Sedona Canada working group and complaints that it is insular and irrelevant<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/5078/Sedona-Canada-is-alive-and-well.html|title=Sedona Canada is alive and well|author=Colin Campbell and James Swanson|work=canadianlawyermag.com}}</ref>

==External links==
* [https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/sedonacanada/principles_en.html/The Sedona Canada Principles]
* [http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/5078/Sedona-Canada-is-alive-and-well.html/ Sedona Canada is alive and well]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160603005906/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181488000.html Taming the beast of eDiscovery with Sedona Canada Principles]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160603010354/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-400332555.html 2014 eDiscovery Year in Review includes Sedona Canada Principles]
* [http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/469/ontario-judge-slams-dark-ages-court-system.html/Ontario Courts discuss Sedona Canada Principles]
* [http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/3988/What-is-predictive-coding-and-can-it-help-me.html/ Sedona Canada Principles and predictive coding]
* [http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/5019/Alternative-routes.html/ Document review using Sedona Canada Principles]

==References==

{{reflist}}
<!-- After listing your sources please cite them using inline citations and place them after the information they cite. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFB for instructions on how to add citations. -->

<!-- STOP! Be warned that by using this process instead of Articles for Creation, this article is subject to scrutiny. As an article in "mainspace", it will be DELETED if there are problems, not just declined. If you wish to use AfC, please return to the Wizard and continue from there. -->

[[Category:Data management]]

{{Sourceattribution|Sedona Canada Principles}}