A hearing is scheduled on Tuesday in Grant County Circuit Court for a court order to keep Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer from deleting emails that may be relevant to his connection with the militants who took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The Oregonian wants official government business related emails sent and received on a personal email account, which is listed on the Sheriff’s Office website, to be retained according to public records laws. Sheriff Palmer’s attorneys revealed that those emails are routinely deleted, and claim that doing so is within the state’s policies.
Legal Tech Blog
Archive for the ‘Preservation’ Category
Good reminders for in-house counsel and outside litigators:
- Understand the Data Environment
- Document the E-Discovery Process
- Develop a Targeted Collection Strategy
- Utilize Technology to Support Proportionality Arguments
- Reduce E-Discovery Costs by Leveraging Privilege Non-Waiver Agreements
You can read the white paper from Exterro here.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal email account to conduct official State Department business has been at the top of the headlines lately. Clinton has explained that her decision to use her personal email account was simply a matter of convenience and has stated that she has already released over 55,000 pages of correspondence. Not satisfied with the production of printed email, last week the House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said his committee may seek electronic versions of the correspondence, not just the printed copies, and today House Speaker John Boehner called on Clinton to hand over the private server that stores the emails.
Now that the public comments period has closed for the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we thought it was time to do a more in-depth follow up to our post about Judge Scheindlin’s criticism of the proposed changes. Rather than reading all of the thousands of written submissions (you can do that here) we did a breakdown of all of the speakers’ comments at the public hearings before the advisory committee and reviewed the materials that will be considered at their next meeting here in Portland, OR next week. Read more…
This Law Technology News series explores the possibility of limiting e-discovery through agreement between the parties. Part 1 discusses the potential benefits of these contracts and what provisions might be considered. Part 2 cautions parties about the risks of diving into this uncharted territory, as the courts may find some provisions to be unenforceable.
Judge Shira Scheindlin, Senior Judge for the Southern District of New York, has been long considered the leading jurist and a pioneer of e-discovery jurisprudence. She authored the Zubulake I-V opinions, which are mandatory reading for all litigators certainly in federal courts and, in my view, in state courts as well. So you know it won’t end well for a plaintiff accused of spoliation when Judge Scheindlin issues an opinion beginning with the following: “A decade ago, I issued a series of opinions regarding the scope of a litigant’s duty to preserve electronic documents and the consequences of a failure to preserve such documents falling within the scope of that duty… Such obligation should, at this point, be quite clear especially to the party planning to sue.” Read more…
This article was posted on Law Technology News yesterday. Particularly for businesses that have never experienced IP theft by a departing employee, the article offers a good overview of what to expect in litigation and a checklist of first steps to take in preserving the most valuable (and vulnerable) evidence in these cases. I would add that, in addition to working closely with a computer forensics expert, IT staff will usually provide critically important information about systems and proprietary software that the company may use. Read more…
Although electronic discovery has been a regular part of litigation for many years, dealing with the many facets of identifying, collecting, managing, storing, requesting and producing electronically stored information (ESI) remains a daunting task. Frankly, it can be a headache. Over the past decade, the increased focus on electronic discovery has created a morass of disputes, costs and stresses for litigators and their clients. Adequately dealing with discovery of ESI requires a careful balance of competing interests: the need to fully investigate and uncover all potential evidence, and the desire to work efficiently and cost-effectively without bankrupting your client.
Despite volumes of articles, commentaries and blogs written on e-discovery – not to mention legal opinions – some lawyers choose to ignore it. For example, we represented a plaintiff in an accounting malpractice case a few years ago. The defendant produced key memoranda that we suspected were modified prior to production in litigation. To find out, we served a supplemental request for those documents in native format, including metadata showing when the documents were created, revised and printed. The opposing counsel’s written response read, in part: The request “is unduly burdensome and vague. We do not know what it means, or what a response would look like.” Read more…