10.2190/WR.15.3-4.c 7854668RG61855G7 3 Potentially Lethal Bytes: Why E-Discovery is Crucial for Employees in Arbitration 279 292 20120411 20120411 20120411 20120411 7854668RG61855G7.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=7854668RG61855G7 3 Peter Whitehead Daniel Estrada Star Swift Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan More and more, employers are relying on mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts to save them the time, money, and public image they might risk in traditional litigation. In this tight economy, many employees are assenting to these mandatory arbitration clauses to land a job, but submitting to arbitration is not the same as waiving one's constitutional right to due process of the law. Despite enjoying the concession of mandatory arbitration, employers are often reluctant to submit to electronic discovery in arbitration, claiming either that the digital data no longer exist, or that it would be too costly to comply with the discovery requests of the employee. This article illustrates that most of the evidence necessary to provide the employee with a full and fair hearing at arbitration is now created and stored in digital form. Therefore, arbitrators must require reasonable discovery as a fundamental provision of due process, because so much of this critical evidence is likely to exist solely in electronically stored information, which typically exists, conveniently and exclusively, within the control of employers only. To better inform employees of their e-discovery rights, the authors have surveyed and summarized the developing legal authority regarding e-discovery, and they have provided three actual, nonunion arbitrations to illustrate the electronic information that may be requested prior to an arbitration hearing.

Bedikian, M. 2006. State of the law in ADR. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.michbar.org/publications/pdfs/stateoflaw2006_adr.pdf'>http://www.michbar.org/publications/pdfs/stateoflaw2006_adr.pdf</a>

Bennett, S. C. 2009. E-discovery issues: What parties and their counsel need to know in anticipation of and during arbitration. Dispute Resolution Journal, 64(1): 20-28.

Circuit City, Inc., v. Adams. 2002. 279 F3d 889.

City of Ontario v. Quon. 2010. 130 S. Ct. 2619.

Estrada, D. C. 2009. 2009 E-discovery reference guide. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.dcestrada.com/ediscovery-guide.html'>http://www.dcestrada.com/ediscovery-guide.html</a>

Floss v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc. 2000. 211 F 3d 306.

Greenhouse, S. 2010. Company accused of firing over Facebook post. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html'>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html</a>

Kroll Ontrack. 2011. Resource library: State rules and statutes. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.krollontrack.com/resource-library/rules-and-statutes/'>http://www.krollontrack.com/resource-library/rules-and-statutes/</a>

Mintz, J. 2009. Electronic evidence firm grilled over absent memos. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/2D085406-FC80-AE2E-7233BDF30DCE3642/e-discovery/employment_case_and_e_discovery.pdf'>http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/2D085406-FC80-AE2E-7233BDF30DCE3642/e-discovery/employment_case_and_e_discovery.pdf</a>

Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. 2003. 317 F. 3d 646.

Olson, G. C. 2011. Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 would protect rights in employment and consumer settings. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.martinandjones.com/arbitration-fairness-act-of-2011'>http://www.martinandjones.com/arbitration-fairness-act-of-2011</a>

People v. Kwame M. Kilpatrick. 2008. 753 NW 2d 631.

Ragan, C., & Copple, R. 2008. International arbitration can thrive despite e-discovery's challenges. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1208774508556'>http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1208774508556</a>

Ramirez-Baker v. Beazer Homes, Inc., et al. 2008. 636 F. Supp. 2d 1008.

Saulny, S., & Bulkny, N. 2008. Detroit's mayor will leave office and go to jail. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/05detroit.html/'>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/05detroit.html/</a>

Scheindlin, S. A., & Redgrave, J. M. 2008. Special masters and e-discovery: The Intersection of two recent revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cardozo Law Review, 30: 347-405.

Sedona Conference. 2003. The Sedona Principles. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=SedonaPrinciples200303.pdf'>http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=SedonaPrinciples200303.pdf</a>

Sherwyn, D., & Tracey, J. B. 2001. Mandatory arbitration of employment disputes: Implications for policy and practice. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42-5:60-71.

Strauss, P. 2011. Essay on due process. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process'>http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process</a>

Swift, M. S., & Chester, T. J. 2006. Museum personnel practices and the use of arbitration. Art and Museum Law Journal, 1: 145-156.

Swift, M. S., Jones-Rikkers, C., & Sanford, J. 2004. Legal and procedural strategies for employees utilizing arbitration for statutory disputes. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16: 37-46.

Textron Fin. Corp. v. Eddy's Trailer Sales, Inc. 2009. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60065.

Wang, Z. 2008. Ethics and electronic discovery: New medium, same problems. Defense Counsel Journal, 75: 328-345.

West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 1999. 168 F3d 776, 779.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC. 2003. 217 FRD 309.