According to a featured international article‘, ‘ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: WHERE NEITHER THE IBA RULES NOR U.S. LITIGATION PRINCIPLES ARE ENOUGH ‘by Jonathan L. Frank, Julie Bédard, Dispute Resolution Journal, November, 2007-January, 2008 :
‘E-discovery will no doubt become an increasingly important aspect of international arbitration. Different legal cultures–all of which usefully nurture international arbitration–may approach discovery of ESI very differently. Although the IBA Rules provide useful guidance to arbitrators and litigants, it may be difficult to rely heavily on them since they were written before e-discovery became an issue. While U.S. case law deals with ediscovery, it does so primarily in the context of allocating costs and against a backdrop of broad discovery rights that are alien to international arbitration. Thus, the cases may not be all that helpful to arbitrators who must decide the scope of allowable e-discovery. Further analysis of e-discovery issues must be undertaken in order to uncover useful principles that arbitrators could apply. In this connection, we invite practitioners and arbitrators to discuss the issues identified in this article. In any event, practitioners should anticipate the necessity for compromise with respect to discovery procedures and look to their shared experience in assessing the risks and costs involved’.

Full article provided by Mr Ken Withers for my research is available in pdf.

‘Guidelines will provide an appropriate framework to address how to conduct e-discovery, based on norms that the bench and bar can adopt and develop over time as a matter of practice. They are not intended to be enforceable directly, as are the Rules of Civil Procedure, although they may support the enforcement of agreements between parties or provide the basis for court orders. Mandating how e-discovery is conducted through the enactment of detailed rules, at this stage, could be counterproductive, and risk imposing a “one-size fits all” approach that may not be appropriate in different types of litigation or responsive to new technologies as they emerge. It could also add unnecessary complexity to the Rules, and lead to more disputes and related motions. Rather, the objective of these Guidelines is to educate the legal profession, including the judiciary and the practicing bar, on issues relating to e-discovery and how those issues can be addressed in practice.’