Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.

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

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC “Zubulake IV”
The Evolving Law of E-Discovery Joseph J. Ortego, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP New York, NY Jericho, NY.
Successfully Navigating National and Global Discovery Disputes.
Chapter 20 Legal Liability McGraw-Hill/IrwinCopyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
Effective Document Retention: Lean, Mean, But Not Spoiling You or Your Lawsuit Effective Document Retention: Lean, Mean, But Not Spoiling You or Your Lawsuit.
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.
Ronald J. Shaffer, Esq. Beth L. Weisser, Esq. Lorraine K. Koc, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel, Deb Shops, Inc. © 2010 Fox Rothschild DELVACCA.
By GEORGE C. CUNNINGHAM President PELLIGROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 24, 2010 ARMA INTERNATIONAL – RICHMOND CHAPTER Spoliation of Evidence: Innocent or Guilty?
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc.  Motion Hearing before a Magistrate Judge in Federal Court  District of Colorado  Decided in 2007.
Establishing a Defensible and Efficient Legal Hold Policy September 2013 Connie Hall, J.D., Manager, New Product Development, Thomson Reuters.
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.
1 A Practical Guide to eDiscovery in Litigation Presented by: Christopher N. Weiss Aric H. Jarrett Stoel Rives LLP Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA),
1 Records Management and Electronic Discovery Ken Sperl (614) Martin.
E-Discovery LIMITS ON E-DISCOVERY. No New Preservation Rule When does duty to preserve attach? Reasonably anticipated litigation. Audio sanctions.
W W W. D I N S L A W. C O M E-Discovery and Document Retention Patrick W. Michael, Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 101 South Fifth Street Louisville, KY
1 Best Practices in Legal Holds Effectively Managing the e-Discovery Process and Associated Costs.
Information Security and Electronic Discovery
Triton Construction Co, Inc. v. Eastern Shore Electrical Services, Inc. Eastern Shore Services, LLC, George Elliot, Teresa Elliot, Tom Kirk and Kirk’s.
E -nuff! : Practical Tips For Keeping s From Derailing Your Case Presented by Jerry L. Mitchell.
EDiscovery and Records Management. Records Management- Historical Perspective- Paper Historically- Paper was the “Corporate Memory” – a physical entity.
1 Structuring your Information Management to Ensure Litigation Readiness Julian Ackert, Principal Washington DC John Forsyth, HBOS Edinburgh Andrew Haslam,
Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.
1 E-Discovery Changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Concerning Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Effective Date: 12/01/2006 October,
Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know
Electronic Discovery (eDiscovery) Chad Meyer & John Vyhlidal ConAgra Foods.
Grant S. Cowan Information Management & eDiscovery Practice Group.
Page 1 Records Management – 911 Case Study on Information Retention and Retrievability Rachel Verdugo March 23, 2010 Williamsburg, VA.
Investigating & Preserving Evidence in Data Security Incidents Robert J. Scott Scott & Scott, LLP
©2011 Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley E-DISCOVERY Hélène Kazanjian Anne Sterman Trial Division.
© 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. PENSION COMMITTEE v. BANC OF AMERICA SECS., LLC Diving Deeper Into the Zubulake Alvin F. Lindsay 24 February.
DOCUMENT RETENTION ISSUES FOR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL Rebecca A. Brommel BrownWinick 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone:
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc. 239 F.R.D. 81 District of New Jersey
EDISCOVERY: ARE YOU PREPARED? Dennis P. Ogden Belin McCormick, P.C. 666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone: (515) Facsimile:
Attorney-Client Privilege and Privacy Considerations Between US Corporations & Foreign Affiliates General Counsel Conference, Washington, D.C. October.
Discovery III Expert Witness Disclosure And Discovery Motions & Sanctions.
E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb.
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.
MATT DOW Jackson Walker L.L.P. February 14, 2007.
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)
Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc. 224 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007) By: Sara Alsaleh Case starts on page 136 of the book!
EDiscovery Preservation, Spoliation, Litigation Holds, Adverse Inferences. September 15, 2008.
Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia.
PA321: Time, Billing & Records Management Unit 3 Seminar - E-Discovery.
MER 2012: T1 – Achieving Enterprise Content and Records Management with SharePoint John Isaza, Esq., FAI Partner Legal Developments & Rules Affecting SharePoint.
Defensible Records Retention and Preservation Linda Starek-McKinley Director, Records and Information Management Edward Jones
Primary Changes To The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015 Presented By Shuman, McCuskey, & Slicer, PLLC.
Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Not Reported in So.2d, 2005 WL (Fla.Cir.Ct.) Ediscovery, Fall 2010 Francis Eiden.
Emerging Case Law and Recent eDiscovery Decisions.
The Sedona Principles November 16, Background- What is The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference is an educational institute, established in 1997,
Zubulake IV [Trigger Date]
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
1 PRESERVATION: E-Discovery Marketfare Annunciation, LLC, et al. v. United Fire &Casualty Insurance Co.
EDiscovery Also known as “ESI” Discovery of “Electronically Stored Information” Same discovery, new form of storage.
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG Eastern District of Virginia 2004 Neil Gutekunst.
Proposed and Recent Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
Scott L. Howie Donald Patrick Eckler Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered One South Wacker, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL
Morgan Stanley Team 2. Background Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2005 LEXIS 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 23, 2005.) The jury returned.
The Ethics of Technology
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Presentation transcript:

Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions

2 Agenda  Review and Implications of Pension Comitteee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al.  Review and Implications of Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata.  What does this mean to Records and Information Management Programs and eDiscovery Compliance?

3 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Court found the plaintiffs negligent or grossly negligent in failing to preserve and produce documents.  Court found that plaintiffs failed to issue timely litigation holds and identify and preserve backup tapes and other sources of potentially responsive evidence.  Defined the degrees of conduct to determine the appropriate sanctions.

4 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Negligence:  Any failure to take appropriate measures to preserve and collect relevant data.  Gross Negligence:  Something “more than negligence” that “differs from ordinary negligence only in degree and not in kind.”  Willfulness:  “Intentional or reckless conduct that is so unreasonable that harm is highly likely to occur.”

5 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Examples of Negligent Conduct:  Failure to preserve resulting in loss or destruction of relevant information;  Failure to obtain records from all employees who had any involvement with the issues in the litigation;  Failure to take all appropriate measures to preserve ESI;  Failure to assess validity and accuracy of search terms.

6 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Examples of Gross Negligent Conduct:  Failure to cease the deletion of ;  Failure to preserve backup tapes when they are sole source of relevant information or relate to key players;  Failure to collect information from former employees that remain in possession, custody or control after the duty to preserve attaches;  Failure to issue a written litigation hold;  Failure to obtain paper and electronic records from key players;  Failure to identify key players and preserve their data.

7 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Examples of Willful Conduct:  Intentional destruction of relevant records (paper or electronic) after duty to preserve attaches;  Failure to collect records (paper or electronic) from key players.

8 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Sanctions:  Further discovery;  Cost-shifting;  Fines;  Special jury instructions;  Preclusion;  Entry of default judgment or dismissal.  Objective of sanctions:  Deter parties from engaging in spoliation;  Place the risk of an erroneous judgment on the party who wrongfully created the risk;  Restore the prejudiced party to the same position absent the wrongful destruction of evidence.

9 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Implications to consider?  Does the corporation’s policy protect against destruction when litigation is or should be reasonably anticipated?  What do I do with back-up tapes since they may relate to key players but are not the sole source of relevant information and are used primarily for DR purposes? Are they still reasonably inaccessible? Cheap insurance to hold a tape or potential for review and production?  How are litigation holds issued, tracked and audited?  Who is responsible for assessing the accuracy and validity of search terms? Can that person testify?

10 Pension Committee: Zubulake Revisited  Implications to consider?  Does the company know where all the evidence is and is there a policy to protect against loss or destruction when litigation is reasonably anticipated? If not, is this per se negligence?  How does the company obtain records from all employees related to a litigation? How does this affect the management of a valid destruction policy?  What is the company’s policy with respect to departing employees whose data is on preservation hold? Tracking mechanism to know on hold?

11 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata  Cites and distinguishes Pension Committee.  Does not impose the most severe sanctions because other extensive evidence available to the plaintiff to prosecute its claims.  An issue for the jury to decide if defendants’ conduct was intentional spoliation of evidence and if so jury to decide if an adverse inference warranted.  What did the Court consider in Rimkus?

12 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata  Court considered the following factors:  The defendants’ level of culpability with respect to the lost ESI.  The degree of relevance of the lost ESI to both parties’ legal theories.  The availability of other relevant ESI which would support the plaintiff’s claims.

13 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata  Court found the following:  Defendants acted in bad faith and intentionally deleted s and other relevant ESI.  There were other sources available to obtain some of the spoliated evidence.  Other evidence led to the content of some of the deleted ESI (other docs, deposition testimony or circumstantial evidence).

14 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata  Why such a different approach to Pension Committee?  Rimkus noted the different approaches in the various federal circuits assessing spoliation:  5 th, 7 th,8 th, 10 th, 11 th and D.C. Circuits require bad faith;  1 st, 4 th and 9 th Circuits do not require bad faith  3 rd Circuit applies a balancing of degree of fault and resulting prejudice;  Only the 2 nd Circuit appears to permit an adverse inference instruction for gross negligence

15 Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata  Implications to consider?  How will the corporations’ approach to the creation, storage and preservation of ESI fare in the various federal courts?  What test will the specific court apply to determine the appropriateness of sanctions?  Should a corporation approach eDiscovery according to the court’s approach to sanctions or a one size fits all approach and hope for the best?

16 Next Steps  What effect do these cases have on retention rules for electronic data?  What effect do these cases have with respect to back-up tapes?  What effect do these cases have on litigation hold policies?  What effect do these cases have on running search terms to collect data?  What effect do these cases have on employees’ data when they leave the company?

17

18 Questions? Gabrielle A. Finnan, Esq. Electronic Discovery Consultant Iron Mountain-Stratify