According to the federal rules of civil procedure, the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the responding party's ‘possession, custody, or control’ may be required. And the ‘possession, custody, or c...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A105217021
2018
-
전자증거개시 ; 점유 ; 보관 ; 관리 ; 미연방민사소송규칙 ; 세도나 원칙 ; E-discovery ; Possession ; Custody ; Control ; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ; Sedona Principles
300
KCI등재
학술저널
3-41(39쪽)
2
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
According to the federal rules of civil procedure, the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the responding party's ‘possession, custody, or control’ may be required. And the ‘possession, custody, or c...
According to the federal rules of civil procedure, the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the responding party's ‘possession, custody, or control’ may be required. And the ‘possession, custody, or control’of the responding party is important because it affects the scope of the duty of preservation and can lead to sanctions against the failure of the duty of preservation or spoliation. The F.R.C.P. does not define the meaning of ‘possession, custody, or control’, which is left to the interpretation of the court. In the case of the electronically stored information, however, there is a controversy about the interpretation of whether it is ‘possession, custody, or control’due to various characteristics such as massive volume, volatility, and expertise. Furthermore, the emergence of social media, cloud computing, and mobile devices has mixed features such as sharing, presence of service providers, and privacy, making interpretation of the meaning of ‘possession, custody, or control’ more complicated. As a result, the judgment of the court has become inconsistent, and the parties are often conscious of the possibility that they may be subject to sanctions for violation of the duty of preservation or for the spoliation, so that ‘possession, custody, or control’ is frequently disputed. And the Sedona Conference has published Sedona Principles on Rule 34 and Rule 45 ‘possession, custody, or control’.
We are also undergoing a change due to the digital revolution and these changes will be reflected in the evidence collection and production reality. It is also worthwhile to review the US cases and the Sedona principles for the ‘possession, custody, or control’ of electronically stored information, since it is discussing the introduction of the civil discovery in Korea. This article summarized and reviewed the following contents. First, the ground rules for ‘possession, custody, or control’, the judging criteria of the courts, and the problems according to the characteristics of electronically stored information are summarized. Second, the judgments of the courts on some types of electronically stored information controversial about ‘possession, custody, or control’ was reviewed. Third, the Sedona Principles on Rule 34 and Rule 45 ‘possession, custody, or control’ were introduced and reviewed.
참고문헌 (Reference)
1 송종준, "이사의 경영책임에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용상 과제 - 미국 판례법과의 비교검토를 중심으로 -" 한국경영법률학회 27 (27): 91-129, 2017
2 김도훈, "업무상 개인 모바일 기기 활용에 따른 미국 전자증거개시절차상 쟁점에 관한 소고" 과학기술법연구원 23 (23): 3-40, 2017
3 김도훈, "소셜 미디어에 대한 전자증거개시에 관한 고찰" 과학기술법연구원 20 (20): 43-84, 2014
4 김도훈, "미연방민사소송규칙 제37조(e) 개정안에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 32 (32): 47-76, 2015
5 김도훈, "미연방민사소송규칙 개정안에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 35 (35): 519-545, 2015
6 김도훈, "證據開示節次上 일시적 데이터의 取扱에 관한 小考 - 일시적 데이터의 보존의무를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 18 (18): 49-75, 2008
7 Christopher E. Prker, "“Tweet” me your status: Social media in discovery and at trial" 59 : 34-, 2012
8 Danielle Richter, "“Bring Your Own Device”Programs: Employers control over employee devices in the mobile e-discovery age" 82 : 443-, 2015
9 Carole Basri, "§22:19. BYOD and mobile devices, eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel §22:19"
10 Robert M. Abrahams, "§ 27:5. CPLR 3120: Document discovery from a party and a nonparty—ossession, custody or control requirement, 3 N.Y.Prac., Com. Litig. in New York State Courts § 27:5"
1 송종준, "이사의 경영책임에 대한 경영판단원칙의 적용상 과제 - 미국 판례법과의 비교검토를 중심으로 -" 한국경영법률학회 27 (27): 91-129, 2017
2 김도훈, "업무상 개인 모바일 기기 활용에 따른 미국 전자증거개시절차상 쟁점에 관한 소고" 과학기술법연구원 23 (23): 3-40, 2017
3 김도훈, "소셜 미디어에 대한 전자증거개시에 관한 고찰" 과학기술법연구원 20 (20): 43-84, 2014
4 김도훈, "미연방민사소송규칙 제37조(e) 개정안에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 32 (32): 47-76, 2015
5 김도훈, "미연방민사소송규칙 개정안에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 35 (35): 519-545, 2015
6 김도훈, "證據開示節次上 일시적 데이터의 取扱에 관한 小考 - 일시적 데이터의 보존의무를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 18 (18): 49-75, 2008
7 Christopher E. Prker, "“Tweet” me your status: Social media in discovery and at trial" 59 : 34-, 2012
8 Danielle Richter, "“Bring Your Own Device”Programs: Employers control over employee devices in the mobile e-discovery age" 82 : 443-, 2015
9 Carole Basri, "§22:19. BYOD and mobile devices, eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel §22:19"
10 Robert M. Abrahams, "§ 27:5. CPLR 3120: Document discovery from a party and a nonparty—ossession, custody or control requirement, 3 N.Y.Prac., Com. Litig. in New York State Courts § 27:5"
11 "https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms"
12 "https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info"
13 "https://thesedonaconference.org/publications"
14 "http://www.wassom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013-DNJ-Gatto-spoliati on.pdf"
15 Erik Hammerquist, "Vendor Voice: BYOD is the No. 1 E-Discovery Challenge for 2014"
16 Jonathan M. Redgrave, "Understanding and contextualizing precedents in E-discovery:The illusion of stare decisis and best practices to avoid reliance on outdated guidance" 20 : 8-, 2014
17 Laura Hunt, "Trending: Proportionality in electronic discovery in common law countries and the united states’federal and state courts" 43 : 279-, 2014
18 Henry J. Kelston, "The next phase in the evolution of cooperation" 37 : 577-, 2014
19 Michael Arnold, "The big data collection problem of little mobile devices" 21 : 10-, 2015
20 "The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Commentary on Rule 34 and Rule 45 “Possession, Custody, or Control”, The Sedona Conference(April, 2015)"
21 "The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Commentary on Rule 34 and Rule 45 “Possession, Custody, or Control”, 17Sedona Conf. J. 467(2016)"
22 Peter Mell, "The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing" 2011
23 Shira A. Scheindlin, "Special Masters and E-Discovery: The Intersection of Two Recent Revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" 30 : 347-, 2008
24 Agnieszka A. McPeak, "Social media, smartphones, and proportional privacy in civil discovery" 64 : 235-, 2015
25 Benita P. Collier, "Privacy on the Internet: What is Reasonable in a Wired World?" 53 : 17-, 2007
26 Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production, "Primer on Social Media" 2012
27 Maggie Anthoney, "New technologies test the limits of the duty to preserve, collect and produce information in civil discovery" 33 (33): 66-, 2015
28 Don Zupanec, "Litigation Hold - Scope - "Possession, Custody, or Control”" 27 (27): 12-, 2012
29 "Lawyers for Civil Justice and The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Comment to the The Sedona Conference on Commentary on Rule 34 and Rule 45 "Possession, Custody, or Control”, Lawyers for Civil Justice(June 15, 2015)"
30 Thomas A. Cooper, "Jurisdictional, procedural, and economic considerations for non-party electronic discover" 59 : 1339-, 2010
31 Matthew Blake, "Head In The Cloud: EDiscovery And Cloud Computing" 54 : 28-, 2012
32 Evan E. North, "Facebook Isn’t Your Space Anymore: Discovery of Social Networking Websites" 58 : 1279-, 2010
33 Shira A. Scheindlin, "ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE CASE AND MATERIALS" WEST 2012
34 Clayton L. Barker, "Discovery of electronically stored information" 64 : 12-, 2008
35 Kristen L. Mix, "Discovery of Social Media" 40 : 27-, 2011
36 Andrew M. Hinkes, "Cloud Computing: New Discovery Challenges Await" 58 : 48-, 2011
원자력손해중 풍평피해 배상에 관한 연구 - 일본의 사례를 중심으로 -
정보환경의 변천에 따른 개인정보 보호 정책의 헌법합치적 본질성 반추
학술지 이력
| 연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 평가 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
| 2021-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | ![]() |
| 2018-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2015-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | ![]() |
| 2013-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2012-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) | ![]() |
| 2011-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2010-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2008-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | ![]() |
| 2007-05-09 | 학회명변경 | 한글명 : 과학기술법연구소 -> 과학기술법연구원영문명 : Institute for Law of science & Technology -> Institute for Law of Science & Technology |
학술지 인용정보
| 기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.48 |
| KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
| 0.48 | 0.42 | 0.66 | 0.24 |