[author: Julie Helmer]
Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of January 26-February 1. Here’s what’s happening.
Relativity Sets 2028 Deadline for Transition to RelativityOne
In a blog post by CEO Phil Saunders, Relativity announced last week that all new Relativity matters created on or after January 1, 2028 must be hosted in RelativityOne. Saunders said existing Relativity Server matters, created on or before December 31, 2027, will continue to be supported in Server. But for the 25% of Relativity users who haven’t migrated to the cloud product, they will need to prepare for this change for hosting of future matters.
“This three-year advanced notice for new matters aims to ensure a rational and seamless transition for your team to the power of native cloud software, in RelativityOne or other viable solutions as you see fit,” Saunders wrote.
While the deadline is many months out, organizations still using Relativity’s Server product should start to think about the transition now. A trusted partner can provide guidance, answer questions, and create a strategic plan for a RelativityOne migration, including methodologies that ensure a seamless transition while maximizing the benefits of cloud-native architecture.
Lost in Translation? Court Rules No
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina recently ruled that a trial court should not have required the defendants to create and produce English translations of discoverable documents written in Japanese and vacated sanctions related to noncompliance of that portion of the discovery order.
In Sessions v. Toyota Motor Sales, the plaintiff is the administrator of her late son’s estate. She sued Toyota, alleging that her son’s death was caused in part by the faulty design of her son’s vehicle, which was involved in a collision with a dump truck.
In August 2023, after a hearing, the trial court entered the discovery order, which in part directed the Toyota defendants to supplement certain requests for production of documents, including providing English translations of documents produced in Japanese. In December 2023, the plaintiff moved for sanctions, contending that the Toyota defendants did not provide the English translations of previously produced documents per the order. The trial court sanctioned the Toyota defendants, finding they did not timely comply with its discovery order.
However, the appeals court concluded the trial court “erred by requiring the Toyota Defendants to create new documents in English of documents already provided that are in the Japanese language. Rule 26 of our Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to seek documents in the possession of the adverse party; it does not generally require the adverse party to pay for any said documents to be translated into the English language. … In other words, there is no duty to produce documents that do not exist.” If the English translations already existed or were created in the normal course of their business, those documents should be provided as being within the scope of the Rule.
Other recent eDiscovery news and headlines:
[View source.]
