Over ninety percent of the documents that a corporation generates today are in electronic form, and only one third of these documents will ever be reduced to paper form over their life. The implications are quite simple: the evidence in most civil and criminal litigation is found on computing systems. This reality largely went ignored in the United States over the last decade, during which courts issued ad hoc opinions regarding if and how electronically stored information (ESI) would be discovered or disclosed by the respective parties. In December of 2006, however, the United States judiciary changed this equation by adopting a new set of procedural rules that govern federal litigation. Under these Amended U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Amended Rules ) electronic discovery is now mandated in all federal cases. The Rules also govern the preservation, collection and production of ESI. Approximately five months have passed since the 1 December 2006 effective date of the Amended Rules About a third of corporate America has a fairly good understanding of the Rules, taking the necessary steps to put into place protocols to address them. Another third of corporate America is currently in the process of doing so. The remaining third, however, has really not fully grasped the implications of the Amended Rules and the potential increased in costs and risks associated with these changes. In the United States, the federal judiciary is given wide latitude to interpret and apply the Federal Rules. While it is early in the process to fully understand how the judiciary will apply the Amended Rules, the cases issued over the last several months demonstrate some discernable trends. Notably, courts are (1) holding outside counsel accountable for not engaging in more comprehensive or meaningful pre-discovery conferences as required under the Amended Rules; (2) ordering that parties rely on technical staff beyond the legal team -whether a forensic expert or an employee - with the appropriate knowledge of the company's IT systems; (3) willing to more readily order the production of native documents in particular cases despite the lack of blanket requirement therefor, and (4) continuing to impose sanctions for failure to preserve or produce ESI. In addition, 28 federal district courts have adopted their own guidelines or local rules-several of which go well beyond the requirements of the Amended Rules. This article summarizes the initial experience of courts and litigants and recommends best practices with regard to implementation of the Amended Rules.