Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG Eastern District of Virginia 2004 Neil Gutekunst.

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

Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
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.
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.
Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.
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.
E-Discovery New Rules of Civil Procedure Presented by Lucy Isaki January 23, 2007.
Ronald J. Shaffer, Esq. Beth L. Weisser, Esq. Lorraine K. Koc, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel, Deb Shops, Inc. © 2010 Fox Rothschild DELVACCA.
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.
10/13/08JULIA KRIPKE - CONFIDENTIAL STAMPS1 The CONFIDENTIAL Stamp In litigation, each side produces* documents* in response to the other side’s discovery*
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 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.
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc. (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007) Andrew S. Lo E-Discovery 10/6/09.
Is Records Management Still Relevant? Sean Regan E-Discovery Product Marketing Manager Symantec Enterprise Vault.
Triton Construction Co, Inc. v. Eastern Shore Electrical Services, Inc. Eastern Shore Services, LLC, George Elliot, Teresa Elliot, Tom Kirk and Kirk’s.
Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.
Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know
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.
Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc. 239 F.R.D. 81 District of New Jersey
The Sedona Principles 1-7
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.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2005 SECTIONS C & F CLASS 24 DISCOVERY V.
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.
Lori A. Tetreault, Esq. May 17, We’re Gonna talk About:  Pre-trial Discovery  The new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  “Electronically Stored.
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.
1 eDiscovery & eRetention: Facing the Challenge Presented by: Thomas Greene Special Assistant Attorney General September 22, 2008.
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.
1 Record Management, Electronic Discovery, and the Changing Legal Landscape Dino Tsibouris (614)
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.
Digital Government Summit
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,
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.
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.
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.
Proposed and Recent Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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).
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2003 SECTION F CLASS 22/23 DISCOVERY IV.
2015 Civil Rules Amendments. I. History of Rule 26 Amendments.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Information Technology & The Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sonya Naar - DLA Piper US LLP Doug Herman - UHY Advisors FLVS, Inc.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Effective Formal and Informal Discovery
Presentation transcript:

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG Eastern District of Virginia 2004 Neil Gutekunst

Parties Rambus, Inc. – Plaintiff. Technology licensing and computer memory company. Became infamous for aggressive intellectual property litigation. Infineon Technologies – Defendant. Spin-off of Siemens AG; main businesses are semiconductors and memory products.

Facts Early 1998, Rambus institutes document retention policy. September 1998 – Presentations given to employees describing policy. “LOOK FOR THINGS TO KEEP.” September 3 rd, 1998 – Shred day! Rambus employees given burlap bags to fill with discoverable documents. Beer, champagne and pizza did follow.

Facts Estimated 20,000 lbs of documents, 2 million pages, were shredded on Shred Day alone. Reason behind Shred Day? “Some of that stuff is discoverable.” Testimony from Rambus in-house counsel. Fall of 1998 – Several additional Shred Days take place. Unknown if more champagne was served – Rambus institutes this patent litigation.

Rules Effected FRCP 37(f) – Failure to Make Disclosures or Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions – “Sanctions cannot be imposed for loss of electronically stored information resulting from the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” – “Safe Harbor” provision for records lost in the regular course of a routine document retention program. – Good faith requirement; not permitted to exploit program to thwart discovery

eDiscovery Issues Applying FRCP 37(f) to plaintiffs “Good faith” requirement. Is document discoverability a poor reason for instituting a document retention program? Litigation hold applicable for plaintiffs. Is a spoilation finding warranted when documents are destroyed pursuant to a document retention policy?

eDiscovery Perspective Usually, it is the defendant whose actions come into question. However, plaintiffs also have a duty to place a litigation hold on files when they reasonably anticipate litigation. Plaintiffs are aware much sooner than defendants that litigation may be pending!

Conclusion Rambus had a “Document Retention Program” in name only. Court finds Rambus to have instituted a document destruction program to improve its litigation posture. Spoilation!

Questions If Rambus had not testified that the reason behind Shred Day(!) was document discoverability, would this case have come out different? Two years lapsed between Shred Day(!) and litigation. Isn’t discoverability the reason behind every document retention program? Should plaintiffs who spoil evidence be punished more severely than defendants? After all, they are coming to court with unclean hands! Negative inference? Dismissal? Monetary sanctions?