E-discovery state rules

I attended a seminar last week regarding the latest updates on Massachusetts laws surrounding eDiscovery.  The speaker was an attorney with extensive technical background and expertise in the eDiscovery field.  The seminar was presented by the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, so much of the discussion was geared directly to that audience.
The speaker touched on an interesting theme that has implications on the future role of eDiscovery.  He said there is no such thing as eDiscovery.  Instead, there was simply discovery, a part of which entails electronic evidence.  I thought this was well put, as there is often this idea that eDiscovery is expensive and its place in the legal space is still undetermined.  In fact, eDiscovery is a necessary litigation tool, as much of the data needed in litigation stems from electronic sources, or solely resides electronically.
Another theme of the seminar was how to manage eDiscovery with opposing counsel.  The emphasis was on getting a game plan ahead of time, with both parties working for the mutual interest of making the eDiscovery process as least cumbersome as possible.  Whether it is choosing a vendor or vendors to work with, or realizing the scope of the data needed, talking through the process with both parties beforehand can make the eDiscovery process managable.
In regards to the overall theme, federal regulations versus Massachusetts eDiscovery rules, it is clear that the commonwealth, like many other non-federal governing bodies, still has a ways to go in terms of defining eDiscovery's role in litigation. 
The seminar was helpful in understanding some areas of eDiscovery, but the overall message I received was that eDiscovery is an evolving space and what is up ahead will be determined by laws and regulations, advances in the industry, and fiscal concerns.