 |
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions
What is The Sedona ConferenceŽ?
The Sedona ConferenceŽ (TSC) is a charitable, 501(c)(3) research and educational institute dedicated to the advancement of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation and intellectual property rights. It is supported by registrations, meeting fees, sponsorships and donations. TSC's basic business model is that conferences, events, working groups, and the resulting content, are self-sustaining both in terms of out-of-pocket costs and appropriate provision for contribution to overhead. TSC is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business (effective January 1, 2006) at 201 E Washington Street, in Phoenix, AZ, along with a satellite office in Sedona, AZ.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
Why does The Sedona ConferenceŽ concentrate on antitrust law, intellectual property rights and complex litigation?
Innovation drives our economy. Antitrust laws regulate our economy. Without a way to resolve complex litigation within the context of Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the judicial system's ability to provide even the appearance of justice and fairness in these critical areas is called into question.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
What is the vision of The Sedona ConferenceŽ?
The Sedona ConferenceŽ believes that the magic of focused dialogue outside an adversarial setting and the combined knowledge of experts representing varied viewpoints can achieve critically important consensus on the most difficult issues. TSC brings together the brightest minds for focused discussions in a think-tank setting with the goal of creating practical solutions and recommendations. Their findings are developed and enhanced through a substantive peer review process so that the resulting content can swiftly help drive the reasoned and just advancement of law and policy in the areas under study.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
How does The Sedona ConferenceŽ achieve its mission?
Every year TSC puts on a "regular season" of restricted attendance conferences in the three areas of its study. The conferences are dialogue-based, mini-sabbaticals for the nation's leading jurists, lawyers, and experts that allow them to examine leading edge issues of law and policy. They feature a faculty of fifteen judges, lawyers and experts, and are limited to 45 additional participants, to ensure the proper environment for meaningful dialogue. The conferences serve as incubators to identify "tipping points" in the law that may benefit from the creation of indepth focus by a Working Group. When appropriate, a Working Group is formed that includes as many viewpoints and areas of expertise as possible to develop best practices, guidelines, or principles that may be of practical and immediate benefit to the bench and bar, and all other participants in the legal system.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
How does one become a member of a Working Group?
TSC develops the initial "core" of each Working Group by invitation to ensure the proper balance and representation of varied viewpoints needed to fully explore the assigned mission of the Group. The Working Group's formation and work plan are then posted on the TSC website. Any interested person can become a member of the Working Group by filling out the website application. Members are granted access to the Working Group's section of the website, which includes early access to draft work product for review and comment. In addition, members have the opportunity to volunteer for Special Project Teams, and are invited to annual or semi-annual meetings (limited attendance).
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
What have Working Group's achieved so far in contributing to the advancement of law and policy?
Working Group 1 was formed in Spring of 2002 and issued a public comment version of The Sedona Principles addressing electronic document production in March of 2003 - a month later, the Principles were cited by the Federal Judicial Center's Civil Rules Advisory Committee Discovery Subcommittee as one of the reasons to focus on possible amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this area. A month later it was cited by the Southern District of New York in the first of many opinions in the now seminal Zubulake opinion. Most recently, it was cited by the District of Kansas as "persuasive authority" where no guidance existed in either the rules or the case law to help resolve the dispute before the court on the discovery of various data in connection with electronic spreadsheets. Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 2005 WL 2401626 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2005).
Working Group 2 on Protective Orders, Confidentiality and Public Access issued its public comment report on best practices in May of 2005. The report was the subject of a series of Town Hall meetings held in Newark, Dallas, Denver and Birmingham to gather feedback before the group reconvened in April 2006 to work on the "final" product, which will be issued by the end of the year.
Working Group 3 developed a commentary on the role of economics in antitrust that was released for public comment in August of 2005, and was the subject of extensive dialogue at the fall 2005 antitrust conference. The group finalized this commentary in 2006, and is now focusing on educational efforts based on the commentary.
Working Group 4 is developing a paper on the intersection of the patent and antitrust laws. The goal is to create guidelines to help courts resolve disputes in this important area of the law. Extensive dialogue about the initial draft work product was conducted at the fall 2005 antitrust conference. Now, the Working Group is moving towards the public comment phase.
Working Group 5 has developed a set of recommended best practices for Markman hearings and claim construction in patent litigation, and issued a public comment version of its recommendations in June 2006. Public comment is currently being gathered and the Group will reconvene during the 1st half of 2007 to complete its effort.
Working Group 6 is a multi-jurisdictional effort addressing issues that arise in the context of e-information management and e-disclosure for multinationals subject to litigation and regulatory oversight in multiple jurisdictions with potentially conflicting internal laws. The first meeting was in Cambridge, England in the summer of 2005. The Working Group immediately began working on a Global Survey, a resource library, and judicial education programs for the multi-jurisdictional context. A second meeting was held in September 2006 in Madrid. The Group is currently working on completing the first edition of its Global Survey, and a set of guidelines addressing cross-border issues, to serve a basis for judicial education efforts internationally.
Working Group 7 is an all-Canadian group developing e-disclosure principles and information management guidelines for Canada. The first meeting was held in Quebec in May, 2006 and included members of the judiciary and private and government bar from six provinces, as well as observers from the United States bench and bar. The public comment version of The Sedona Principles, Canadian Edition, will be available in English and French in early 2007.
Working Group 8 is currently being formed to address the issues surrounding punitive damages in mass tort litigation. The Steering Committee includes an active federal judge and a retired state judge, both experienced in complex civil litigation and mass torts. A public comment draft of the Working Group's study and recommendations will be available in 2007.
Working Group 9 is currently being formed and will include members of the Bench and Bar of England and Wales. It intends to explore the application and adaptation of The Sedona Principles to British civil litigation. Like Working Group 6 (Sedona International) and Working Group 7 (Sedona Canada) and the several U.S. based Working Groups, Working Group 9 (Sedona England & Wales) will be made up of experienced lawyers and experts from diverse backgrounds and has strong ties to the judiciary.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
What is unique about Working Group output?
It is the outcome of a dialogue-based process that seeks consensus from all interested viewpoints on a particular issue. Where consensus can be reached, principles are created. Where consensus cannot be reached, guidelines or best practices are created on how to address and/or resolve the conflict. The created product undergoes a period of public-comment and peer review for approximately six months. Following the peer review, the original drafters review the comments and work product and incorporate appropriate changes and edits into a "final" document. The Working Group concept also offers an ongoing process to stay current with the changing environment. For example, Working Group 1 efforts, including the Principles, are now entering a second generation. There is now a call by TSC for additional public comment in advance of the planned revisions to the Principles coinciding with the effective date of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the area of ediscovery.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
How is The Sedona ConferenceŽ different from other nonprofit organizations that seek to advance law and policy, such as the ABA or ALI?
The Sedona ConferenceŽ has been referred to as an ALI on steroids and as "Think-Tank West." But we are very targeted in the issues we decide to tackle. Working Group efforts are launched only on those issues identified during our conferences that can lead to practical, immediately usable content in areas extremely important in the real world. We do not prepare treatises, or analyses of entire areas of the law. Instead, we create content that can help address "crisis areas" or bottlenecks in the development of the law.
|
| |
|
[ Top ]
|
| |
|
|
|
