The Docket April 2017 - Page 3

S C BA N E W S Booker High successful at mock trial competition A dministrators, staff, students and alumni of Booker High School have another reason to be proud to wear their purple and gold. Early in March, students enrolled in the Law Academy at Booker High School placed second in this year’s 12th Circuit Mock Trial competi- tion. This year’s competition took place at the Judge Lynn Silvertooth Judicial Center and involved several schools within the 12th Judicial Circuit. The Law Academy’s second- place finish marks its best finish in the mock trial competition. In addi- tion to taking home the second-place prize, Booker’s stellar performance earned the Law Academy a spot at the state competition in Orlando (March 23-25). The Law Academy students will get their first opportu- nity to showcase their skills against top teams from all over the state. The Law Academy’s mock trial team was coached by Hagen Brody SCBA PRESIDENT’S COLUMN E. Keith DuBose, Esq. Matthews Eastmoore and Alan Perez . Brody has coached the mock trial team since the start of the annual mock trial competi- tion and has been a mainstay and constant source of support for the Law Academy’s team. Perez worked with this year’s team and provided the benefit of his many years of trial experience. Both lawyers are proud of the Law Academy’s performance and look forward to the state compe- tition. In the case assigned to the students, State of Florida v. Hunter Wilson, college student Hunter Wilson was accused of causing the death of a fellow student. Young Mr. Wilson was in charge of the honor society’s pledge process. As part of the hazing process, a student with a peanut allergy was forced to eat a brownie with nuts (I would consider that hazing only if ice cream did not accompany the brownie). The students had to argue whether the The Law Academy’s mock trial team was coached by Hagen Brody and Alan Perez. . . . Both lawyers are proud of the Law Academy’s performance. actions constituted hazing and if Wilson was negligent in his duties as pledge chair. As you might suspect, the fact pattern resulted in some interesting and creative arguments. Congratulations to the Booker High School Law Academy, and good luck at the state competition later in the month. Also, a special thanks to SCBA members Brody and Perez for working with our future jurists. E - D I S C OV E RY • PA RT 3 Florida is first Bar in nation to require tech CLEs Florida Supreme Court made the Florida Bar the first mandatory bar in the nation to require technology education as a part of its CLE requirements. See In parts 1 and 2 of this 3-part series, we discussed the history of e-discovery as well as practice tips. In Part 3, we explore Florida- specific requirements, federal/state interplay, proportionality, and the future of e-discovery. By ILYAS SAYEG, Esq. Maglio, Christopher, and Toale P.A. W e can no longer afford to ignore the impact of technology on our practices. While this series has focused on e-discovery in particular, the responsibility of managing new technology in our practices is neither limited to e-discovery nor can it be divorced from it. For example, many issues that apply to the production of e-discovery also apply to preservation. Further, handling all of this electronic information puts responsibilities on our clients and our practices to handle that information effectively and securely. As a result of the rising importance of technology in our practices, on Sept. 29, 2016, the http://www.floridasupremecourt. org/decisions/2016/sc16-574. pdf . This opinion amends Rule Ilyas Sayeg, Esq. Maglio, Chris- topher, and Toale P.A. 4-1.1 (Competence) to now state, “competent representation may involve a lawyer’s association with, or retention of, a nonlawyer advisor with established technological competence in the relevant field. Competent representation may also entail safeguarding confidential information related to the representation, including electronic transmissions and communications.” Further, the opinion amends Rule 6-10.3 (Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards). The rule increases from 30 to 33 the number of CLE credits required per three years and requires that those three additional credits must be technology credits. This is the first time in over 30 years that the Florida Bar has amended its CLE requirement. We would do well to take the hint. The Relationship Between Florida and Federal E-Discovery Rules It is not uncommon for state rules to shadow federal rules. For example, Florida Rule 1.280(d) (2), adopted in 2012 to address e-discovery, is modeled to some degree after the 2006 amendments to Federal Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) was amended in 2006 particularly to address proportionality and e-discovery. In 2015, however, the Federal Rules underwent substantial (and controversial) amendments. The most controversial of the 2015 amendments was to move the proportionality analysis from Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) to Rule 26(b)(1), which defines the scope of discovery. As a result of this change, in order for information to be within the scope of discovery in federal court, it must be both relevant and proportional. Technically, proportionality has been a part of the federal rules since See TECH , Page 15 The Docket · April 2017 3