Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Federal Civil Rules & Electronic Discovery: What's It to Me? 2007 Legal Breakfast Briefing Presented to Employers Resource Association by Robert Reid,
Advertisements

The Evolving Law of E-Discovery Joseph J. Ortego, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP New York, NY Jericho, NY.
Saving Your Documents Can Save You Anne D. Harman, Esq. Bethany B. Swaton, Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 2100 Market Street, Wheeling (304)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004 District Justice Scheindlin Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Zubulake V.
and Electronic Records Retention: IT Requirements Paul Dworak Office of Compliance
Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.
Identification and Disposition of Official University Records University of Texas at Arlington Records Management.
248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007) Doe v. Norwalk Community College.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation Jason CISO – University of Connecticut October 30, 2014 Information Security Office.
© The McCoy Law Firm 2012 James McCoy The McCoy Law Firm Coit Rd., Ste. 560 Dallas, Texas (214)
E-Discovery New Rules of Civil Procedure Presented by Lucy Isaki January 23, 2007.
INFORMATION WITHOUT BORDERS CONFERENCE February 7, 2013 e-DISCOVERY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.
Ethical Issues in Data Security Breach Cases Presented by Robert J. Scott Scott & Scott, LLP
Ethical Issues in the Electronic Age Ethical Issues in the Electronic Age Frost Brown Todd LLC Seminar May 24, 2007 Frost Brown.
A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO E-DISCOVERY March 4, 2009 Presented to the Corporate Counsel Section of the Tarrant County Bar Association Carl C. Butzer Jackson.
E-Discovery LIMITS ON E-DISCOVERY. No New Preservation Rule When does duty to preserve attach? Reasonably anticipated litigation. Audio sanctions.
Records Management What to Keep and What to Toss.
Office of Research Oversight. Working Group Report Slide 2.
MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT How the law affects University employees and recordkeeping Susan McKinney Records & Information Management.
1 ELECTRONIC DATA & DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATIONS Peter J. Constantine U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor.
LBSC 708X The Record Nature of Electronic Records College of Information Studies.
Developing a Records & Information Retention & Disposition Program:
1 E-Discovery Changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Concerning Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Effective Date: 12/01/2006 October,
Grant S. Cowan Information Management & eDiscovery Practice Group.
Investigating & Preserving Evidence in Data Security Incidents Robert J. Scott Scott & Scott, LLP
Electronic Communications State Owned System Mandates Presented by: Eileen Goldgeier.
Copyright© 2010 WeComply, Inc. All rights reserved. 9/19/2015 Record Management.
The Sedona Principles 1-7
How Hospitals Protect Your Health Information. Your Health Information Privacy Rights You can ask to see or get a copy of your medical record and other.
Discussion Peggy Beeley, MD 2/11/14 Mitigating Medical Malpractice Risks Through Documentation.
Part 6 – Special Legal Rights and Relationships Chapter 35 – Privacy Law Prepared by Michael Bozzo, Mohawk College © 2015 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 34-1.
2009 CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY RULES The California Electronic Discovery Act Batya Swenson E-discovery Task Force
DOE V. NORWALK COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 248 F.R.D. 372 (D. CONN. 2007) Decided July 16, 2002.
Advanced Civil Litigation Class 11Slide 1 Production of Documents Scope Scope Includes documents of all types, including pictures, graphs, drawings, videos.
Meet and Confer Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “parties must confer as soon as practicable - and in any event at least.
Against: The Liberal Definition and use of Litigation Holds Team 9.
P RINCIPLES 1-7 FOR E LECTRONIC D OCUMENT P RODUCTION Maryanne Post.
The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.
Rambus v. Infineon Technologies AG 22 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)
CORPORATE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY TRAINING By: Diana C. Toman, Corporate Counsel & Assistant Secretary.
Information and Records Management INFM 718X/LBSC 708X Seminar on E-Discovery.
Digital Government Summit
Legal Holds Department of State Division of Records Management Kevin Callaghan, Director.
Managing Electronic Mail ( ) Audrey Terry KDLA.
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
Record Retention to Manage Risk F. Jay Meyer Vice President & Senior Attorney TD Banknorth, N.A. Portland, Maine.
EDiscovery Also known as “ESI” Discovery of “Electronically Stored Information” Same discovery, new form of storage.
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc 2007 WL (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
CITY OF PHOENIX RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND E-PRIVACY Margie Pleggenkuhle City Clerk Department March 18, 2004.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT TRAINING City of Oregon City. INTRODUCTION TO RECORDS MANAGEMENT
RECORDS MANAGEMENT TRAINING City of Oregon City. INTRODUCTION TO RECORDS MANAGEMENT.
Susan McKinney, CRM. RECORDS MANAGEMENT AT THE U Policy: Managing University Records and Information Procedures: Retention of University Records Destruction.
Records Management Reality
Retention Breakout Session
UW-Madison Guidelines for Managing the Records of Departing Employees*
Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA) Training
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Forensic Computer Techniques
Records Retention and Disposition Naugatuck Valley Community College
Electronic Records Management
Health Information Management Technology: An Applied Approach
Records Retention NYS Magistrates’ Association
CMS and State Enforcement
Move this to online module slides 11-56
Government Data Practices & Open Meeting Law Overview
Good Spirit School Division
Government Data Practices & Open Meeting Law Overview
Move this to online module slides 11-56
Sadi R. Antonmattei-Goitia Sullo & Sullo, LLP February 16, 2019
Presentation transcript:

Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation Jason Pufahl @jasonpufahl CISO – University of Connecticut October 30, 2014 Information Security Office

Information Security Office Presentation Materials http://s.uconn.edu/presentation http://s.uconn.edu/guidelines http://s.uconn.edu/flowcharts Information Security Office

Information Security Office Spoliation of evidence The intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding Information Security Office

Information Security Office   Court decisions and rules place substantial obligations on public and private organizations to: (1) preserve all electronic materials that could be relevant to pending or anticipated lawsuits (2) retrieve and produce such materials in litigation Court decisions and rules place substantial obligations on public and private organizations to (1) preserve all electronic materials that could be relevant to pending or anticipated lawsuits, and (2) retrieve and produce such materials in such litigation. These obligations apply to the University of Connecticut. Failure to meet them may subject the university and the individuals involved to sanctions and liability.   The scope of these preservation and disclosure duties are broad. They apply to business-related electronic information wherever it is stored – on a University workstation, a laptop or PDA, and even a social networking site or an employee’s home computer– and whatever it is from– email, work processing, spreadsheets, calendars, voice or text messages, wiki sites, videos, photographs, or any other type of digital information. Although these legal duties require that information must be preserved, the reserved information need not be disclosed to the other party without first being appropriately reviewed to be sure that legally protected information is removed. The University and its attorneys still can and will take steps to see that information legally protected will not be disclosed to the opposing party. The rules concerning preservation of hard copies of records have not changed. All printed documents under the control of involved individuals must also be preserved. These preservation and retrieval rules do not require the university to change any general records retention policies Information Security Office

Information Security Office Example and Catalyst Doe v. Norwalk Community College, 2007 • Plaintiff sued a community college for injuries suffered as a result of a sexual assault by an employee. • The court found that the college failed to preserve ESI on the computers of key witnesses. • The court held that a duty to preserve arose before the action was filed, when the college received a demand letter announcing plaintiff’s intention to sue. • The court held that the Rule 37(f) good faith exception was not available because it found that the defendant made no effort to put relevant information on “litigation hold.” • The court also said that the good faith exception was not available because the college had no routine system or consistent policy in place regarding the destruction of ESI. UConn’s Process Prior to 2011 : Process for hard drive collection Email maintained for only one year Information Security Office

Information Security Office Electronic Discovery Committee To help meet its obligations, the University created an Electronic Discovery Committee, made up of representatives from:  Information Security Office The Office of the Attorney General Privacy Office Records Management Human Resources General Counsel   Committee serves as a resource to assure approach is: Consistent Compliant with applicable laws and University policies Information Security Office

Information Security Office Additional parties involved in the process: ISO Administrative Assistant (ISO Admin) ISO Rep Mail and File Admin IT Technician (IT Tech) User Services/Accounts Desk IT Staff Information Security Office

Information Security Office Guiding Principles Cease destruction of relevant documents Preservation of relevant documents Ensure data are available for discovery “Reasonableness” When a case enters discovery, we can produce the expected documents consistently and within reason. Information Security Office

Information Security Office Factors to Consider in Records Retention Severity of litigation Operation efficiencies Individual privacy Risk of data loss Information Security Office

Data to be Considered Business-related electronic information Location Content University workstation employee’s home computer mobile device online email word processing spreadsheets calendars voice/text messages wiki sites Videos Photographs any other type of digital information Files must be maintained in their original form Information Security Office

Information Security Office Other Requirements Litigation Hold Tracking Legal Files General Counsel's Application Report Tracker (RT) Manages all of UConn’s incoming requests UConn maintains a separate file from the AG’s office. Looking to go to Legal Files as a single clearinghouse for data. Secure Storage Location Physical – Safe/Locked space Electronic - Protected Information Security Office

Information Security Office Process Components: Initial Litigation Hold Notice Process Drive Imaging Process Hard Drive Re-Image Process Departmental IT/3rd Party Vendor Collection Process Voluntary/Involuntary Termination Process Litigation Hold Release Process Information Security Office

Initial Litigation Hold Notice Information Security Office

Information Security Office Highlights/Considerations Every notice originates from the General Counsel’s Office Pre-litigation step captures email Notification is sent to custodian It is the custodian's responsibility to ensure all relevant data is maintained regardless of location Initial scope discussion between IT staff and legal staff administrative IT data Collection always errs on side of “reasonable” Information Security Office

Information Security Office Drive Imaging Process Information Security Office

Information Security Office Highlights/Considerations Activation is determined by employee separation, computer repair or case severity Flow identifies who is imaging: internal staff or 3rd party Complexity of case Skill set of staff Contracts Encryption keys collected and stored Is the original drive retained or recycled? i.e.: removable hard drives vs. SSD Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Departmental IT/3rd Party Collection Process Information Security Office

Information Security Office Highlights/Considerations Activation is determined by case complexity Flow identifies who is collecting: Departmental IT or 3rd party Collection is done based off of completed survey Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Voluntary/Involuntary Termination Process Information Security Office

Information Security Office Highlights/Considerations Validates that at separation, relevant data are retained Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Litigation Hold Release Process Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office Highlights/Considerations ISO receives notification from the General Counsel's Office that the case is settled Dispersal of electronic records Information Security Office

Information Security Office Critical Points Relationship with General Counsel Process must satisfy both General Counsel and IT staff Define reasonable processes Adhere to those processes Information Security Office

Information Security Office Attachments Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Information Security Office

Thank You Jason Pufahl CISO jason.pufahl@uconn.edu 860-486-3743 Information Security Office