1 eDiscovery & eRetention: Facing the Challenge Presented by: Thomas Greene Special Assistant Attorney General September 22, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
Advertisements

The Evolving Law of E-Discovery Joseph J. Ortego, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP New York, NY Jericho, NY.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2004 District Justice Scheindlin Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Zubulake V.
Qualcomm Incorporated, v. Broadcom Corporation.  U.S. Federal Court Rules of Civil Procedure – amended rules December 1, 2006 to include electronically.
Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation Jason CISO – University of Connecticut October 30, 2014 Information Security Office.
1 As of April 2014 Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
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.
Ronald J. Shaffer, Esq. Beth L. Weisser, Esq. Lorraine K. Koc, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel, Deb Shops, Inc. © 2010 Fox Rothschild DELVACCA.
William P. Butterfield February 16, Part 1: Why Can’t We Cooperate?
Retention How State and Federal policies can impact local districts.
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 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
17th Annual ARMA Metro Maryland Spring Seminar Confidentiality, Access, and Use of Electronic Records.
Developing a Records & Information Retention & Disposition Program:
Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.
Ronald J. Hedges No Judge Left Behind: A Report Card on the E- Discovery Rules April 24, 2007 Austin, Texas National.
Electronic Evidence: New Challenges for Information Security Officers
Finding Your Way around the Courthouse. Court Records Online – PACER - Public Access to Court Electronic Records – Case Management: CM/ECF – State Courts.
The Sedona Principles 1-7
EVIDENCE Some Basics Spring Overview The cases you read involve facts and law Most often appellate courts decide legal issues based on the facts.
EDISCOVERY: ARE YOU PREPARED? Dennis P. Ogden Belin McCormick, P.C. 666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone: (515) Facsimile:
Discovery III Expert Witness Disclosure And Discovery Motions & Sanctions.
E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb.
FRCP 26(f) Sedona Principle 3 & Commentaries Ryann M. Buckman Electronic Discovery September 21, 2009 Details of FRCP 26(f) Details of Sedona Principle.
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.
Public Review Committee Linda Sullivan-Colglazier Assistant Attorney General July 28, 2011.
P RINCIPLES 1-7 FOR E LECTRONIC D OCUMENT P RODUCTION Maryanne Post.
Mon. Nov. 26. Work Product “Privilege” A witness, X, who is friendly to the D was interviewed by P’s attorney and a statement was drawn up Is there any.
2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Will Change How You Address Electronically Stored Information Bay Area Intellectual Property Inn.
© 2010 Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. A Healthy Dose of E-Discovery: A Review of Electronic Discovery Laws for the Healthcare Industry.
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.
E-records and the law John D. Gregory Policy Division Ministry of the Attorney General May 14, 2007.
Information and Records Management INFM 718X/LBSC 708X Seminar on E-Discovery.
1 Record Management, Electronic Discovery, and the Changing Legal Landscape Dino Tsibouris (614)
Records Management for Paper and ESI Document Retention Policies addressing creation, management and disposition Minimize the risk and exposure Information.
© 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Primary Changes To The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015 Presented By Shuman, McCuskey, & Slicer, PLLC.
Copyright © 2015 Bradley & Riley PC - All rights reserved. October 30, 2015 IA ACC 2 nd Annual Corp. Counsel Forum Timothy J. Hill Laura M. Hyer N EW F.
The Sedona Principles November 16, Background- What is The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference is an educational institute, established in 1997,
In Re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2007.
E-Discovery And why it matters to a SSA. What is E-Discovery? E-Discovery is the process during litigation of discovering information relevant to litigation.
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.
1 PRESERVATION: E-Discovery Marketfare Annunciation, LLC, et al. v. United Fire &Casualty Insurance Co.
RULES. After five years of discussion and public comment the proposed amendments took effect on December 1, 2006…specifically changing language in six.
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).
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2005 SECTIONS C & F CLASS 21 DISCOVERY II October 11, 2005.
Electronic Discovery Guidelines FRCP 26(f) mandates that parties “meaningfully meet and confer” to consider the nature of their respective claims and defenses.
School of Health Sciences Unit 3 Legal Aspects of Health Information and Health Care Statistics HI 135 Instructor: Alisa Hayes, MSA, RHIA, CCRC.
E-Discovery Copyright 2008 Thomas F. Goldman. WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO US NOW? OH NO, NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! Overview.
2015 Civil Rules Amendments. I. History of Rule 26 Amendments.
Records Management Reality
Information Technology & The Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sonya Naar - DLA Piper US LLP Doug Herman - UHY Advisors FLVS, Inc.
The Future of Discovery Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Presentation transcript:

1 eDiscovery & eRetention: Facing the Challenge Presented by: Thomas Greene Special Assistant Attorney General September 22, 2008

2 Overview Why Are Lawyers Knocking on My Door? Why Are Lawyers Knocking on My Door? Federal Developments Federal Developments Amended rules for “Electronically Stored Information” (ESI) effective 12/1/06 Amended rules for “Electronically Stored Information” (ESI) effective 12/1/06 State Law Developments State Law Developments Proposed amendments to CA Code of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court (AB 926 (Evans).) Spoliation and Litigation Holds Spoliation and Litigation Holds

3 How is Information Created? Over 92% of information is created electronically. Over 92% of information is created electronically. School of Information Management and Systems U.C. Berkeley November 2003

4 How is Information Stored? 70% of e-documents are never printed. 70% of e-documents are never printed. Considering only paper documents is the equivalent of ignoring 7 of 10 file drawers of potentially relevant information. Considering only paper documents is the equivalent of ignoring 7 of 10 file drawers of potentially relevant information.

5 E-Documents Are Often Powerful Evidence at Trial Far more candid, far less guarded. Far more candid, far less guarded. “The Litigation Gift That Keeps On Giving” “The Litigation Gift That Keeps On Giving” Microsoft, Edw. Jones Microsoft, Edw. Jones Metadata can be probative, e.g., date of preparation, source of prior versions of documents or receipt by specific individual. Metadata can be probative, e.g., date of preparation, source of prior versions of documents or receipt by specific individual.

6 Electronically Stored Information (ESI) FRCP 34(a):”…electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained— translated, if necessary, …into reasonably useful form…” FRCP 34(a):”…electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained— translated, if necessary, …into reasonably useful form…” Proposed CA CCP § : “information that is stored in an electronic medium.” Proposed CA CCP § : “information that is stored in an electronic medium.”

7 Four Concepts in the Federal ESI Rules and Proposed State Rules Early Consideration of ESI issues Early Consideration of ESI issues Two-Tier Approach to Back-up Media Two-Tier Approach to Back-up Media Practical Adjustments Practical Adjustments Shallow Safe Harbor for E-Document Destruction Shallow Safe Harbor for E-Document Destruction

8 Helpful Resource 26-Page “ Pocket Guide” to ESI from the Federal Judicial Center, at le/eldscpkt.pdf 26-Page “ Pocket Guide” to ESI from the Federal Judicial Center, at le/eldscpkt.pdf le/eldscpkt.pdf le/eldscpkt.pdf Designed for attorneys and judges but written in plain English. Designed for attorneys and judges but written in plain English.

9 Critical Decisions Come Early In the Federal System Rule 26(f) Conference Among Counsel Rule 26(f) Conference Among Counsel ASAP but not later than 16 days before Rule 16 conference or issuance of scheduling order. ASAP but not later than 16 days before Rule 16 conference or issuance of scheduling order. Rule 26(a) disclosures of ESI Rule 26(a) disclosures of ESI At or w/in 14 days of 26(f) conference unless a different schedule per stipulation or order. At or w/in 14 days of 26(f) conference unless a different schedule per stipulation or order. Rule 16 Conference Order Rule 16 Conference Order ASAP but at least w/in 90 days of appearance of defendant or 120 days from service of complaint. ASAP but at least w/in 90 days of appearance of defendant or 120 days from service of complaint. CA Local Practices Also Suggest Early Review (“1-Geek Rule”) CA Local Practices Also Suggest Early Review (“1-Geek Rule”)

10 New Local Rules Federal N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 16-9 requires a description of: Federal N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 16-9 requires a description of: “Steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in the action, including interdiction of any document- destruction program and any ongoing erasures of s, voic s, and any other electronically-stored material.” ( “Steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in the action, including interdiction of any document- destruction program and any ongoing erasures of s, voic s, and any other electronically-stored material.” (Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California re: Contents of Joint Case Management Statement (March 1, 2007) at CAND/Judges.nsf/700c1c62613a833e88256d48005fd21b)

11 Better Guidance on What to Cover at Early Conferences Maryland D.Ct. issues useful protocol ( Maryland D.Ct. issues useful protocol (Suggested Protocol for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (D.Md.2007), at “Gold” standard but delimits obligations “Gold” standard but delimits obligations

12 Implications for CIOs Early conferences with lawyers on what you have and how it is stored. Early conferences with lawyers on what you have and how it is stored. Probable participation in early conferences with opposing counsel. Probable participation in early conferences with opposing counsel. Possible testimony to describe and explain systems at case management conference and at Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) deposition. Possible testimony to describe and explain systems at case management conference and at Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) deposition.

13 Two-Tier Approach; Rule 26(b)(2)(C) “A party need not provide discovery of [ESI] from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible” “A party need not provide discovery of [ESI] from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible” But Advisory Committee states that retention obligation continues even if don’t have to produce. But Advisory Committee states that retention obligation continues even if don’t have to produce. Demanding party can motion for production if value outweighs burden;. Demanding party can motion for production if value outweighs burden;. Burden of persuasion on producing party to show why too costly/irrelevant to produce. Burden of persuasion on producing party to show why too costly/irrelevant to produce.

14 California Proposal Challenger bears “burden of demonstrating that information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (CCP § (g).) Challenger bears “burden of demonstrating that information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (CCP § (g).) But responder need not pay to “translate any data compilations”, i.e. recovery from back-up tapes. (CCP § (g); see also Toshiba v. Superior Court (Lexar) (2004) 124 Cal.App.4 th 762.) But responder need not pay to “translate any data compilations”, i.e. recovery from back-up tapes. (CCP § (g); see also Toshiba v. Superior Court (Lexar) (2004) 124 Cal.App.4 th 762.)

15 Forms of Production FRCP 34(b) authorizes demanding party to “specify the form or forms in which [ESI] is to be produced”. FRCP 34(b) authorizes demanding party to “specify the form or forms in which [ESI] is to be produced”. Subject to challenge by responding party. Subject to challenge by responding party. Can specify different forms for spreadsheets and documents. Can specify different forms for spreadsheets and documents. CA proposal similar (CCP § (a)(2).) CA proposal similar (CCP § (a)(2).)

16 Bringing E- Documents into Evidence: Lorraine v. Markel Bringing E- Documents into Evidence: Lorraine v. Markel (D. Md. 2007) 241 F.R.D. 534 Authentication Authentication Testimony of System Administrator Testimony of System Administrator Hash marks Hash marks Metadata Metadata Inscriptions, marks, tags Inscriptions, marks, tags Hearsay Exceptions Hearsay Exceptions Excited utterance; business record Excited utterance; business record

17 Implications for CIOs More likely to have to preserve and produce information with original metadata. More likely to have to preserve and produce information with original metadata. May have to testify to “authenticate” electronic records. May have to testify to “authenticate” electronic records.

18 “Shallow Safe Harbor” FRCP 37(f) provides that “absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions…[for ESI]… lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” FRCP 37(f) provides that “absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions…[for ESI]… lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” Proposed CA CCP § (i): No sanction if loss due to “routine, good faith operation of electronic system” but no alteration “of any obligation to preserve discoverable information.” Proposed CA CCP § (i): No sanction if loss due to “routine, good faith operation of electronic system” but no alteration “of any obligation to preserve discoverable information.”

19 Spoliation Sanctions Adverse Inference Instruction Adverse Inference Instruction Truly ugly in competent hands Truly ugly in competent hands Monetary Monetary Most common Most common Evidence or Issue Evidence or Issue A focused remedy that can put injured party in position would have been absent spoliation A focused remedy that can put injured party in position would have been absent spoliation Terminating Terminating Only in most egregious circumstances but a number of reported cases Only in most egregious circumstances but a number of reported cases

20 Litigation Hold is Crucial is typically destroyed on a 30, 60 or 90 day cycle. is typically destroyed on a 30, 60 or 90 day cycle. Voice Mail is typically destroyed in days. Voice Mail is typically destroyed in days. If don’t act fast, the evidence is gone. If don’t act fast, the evidence is gone.

21 Litigation Hold Policy: Basic Elements Who sets? Who sets? When set? When set? Focus on “key players”, specific time periods and relevant topics. Focus on “key players”, specific time periods and relevant topics. Secure back-up media. Secure back-up media. Secure home PCs, “private” collections. Secure home PCs, “private” collections. Monitor and follow up regularly. Monitor and follow up regularly. Document what you do. Document what you do.

22 Resources Electronic Discovery and Evidence by Michael Arkfeld Electronic Discovery and Evidence by Michael Arkfeld Sedona Conference (sedonaconference.com) Sedona Conference (sedonaconference.com) Internet resources Internet resources Discoveryresources.org; krollontrack.com; FIOS.com; applieddiscovery.com Discoveryresources.org; krollontrack.com; FIOS.com; applieddiscovery.com

23 Conclusion Sanctions for failing to properly secure and produce e-evidence Draconian. Sanctions for failing to properly secure and produce e-evidence Draconian. E-discovery is and will be a major CIO responsibility. E-discovery is and will be a major CIO responsibility. Technology and law changing so quickly that CIOs and lawyers need to work in partnership. Technology and law changing so quickly that CIOs and lawyers need to work in partnership.