Video Screencast Help

Symantec eDiscovery

Showing posts tagged with Information Governance
Showing posts in English
pfavro | 20 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

It has now been over eight years since Judge Scheindlin began issuing her landmark opinions in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg.  Those orders not only shaped the outcome of that particular case, they permanently changed the discovery phase of litigation.  Discovery no longer begins with Rule 34 requests, the Rule 26(f) conference or Initial Disclosures.  Indeed, it begins long before the filing of a complaint.  Discovery now commences with pre-litigation information management.  For how an organization stores and manages its data will go a long way to determining whether it can meet the demands of discovery in 2011.

This point was highlighted this week by none other than Laura Zubulake in her keynote address at the Carmel Valley eDiscovery Retreat.  As my colleague, Allison Walton, pointed out in her recent...

AlliWalt | 19 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

Pretty exciting time here in the eDiscovery world at the Carmel Valley Ranch this week!  Not too long ago, we at Symantec had our annual off-site at the Carmel Valley Ranch and dug deep into our Enterprise Vault 10 launch as well as what our eDiscovery plans were for FY12.  That was in April, and now in July, I am here at the same venue with Clearwell now part of Symantec, in our first event together.  I remember having numerous conversations intra company in April about what we needed to do in order to give our customers the full eDiscovery capability they were looking for and how to complete the Information Governance offering.  With our landmark acquisition, and its tremendous effect on the eDiscovery market, we now look to another landmark event.

Monday kicked off with Laura Zubulake’s keynote address giving an overview of what her personal experience was in the famous Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) case....

pfavro | 13 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

Did you know that Federal Rule 37(e) can really protect your organization from court sanctions?

The Rule 37(e) “safe harbor” provision shields organizations from sanctions when the ordinary, good faith operation of their automated computer systems causes email, archival data and other electronic information to be overwritten and destroyed.  Not without its critics, the safe harbor has empowered numerous litigants to defeat sanctions motions.

Those who have followed best practices for information governance have had the greatest success invoking the safe harbor’s protections.  Such practices include establishing and observing document retention policies.  The Kermode v. University of Mississippi Medical Center (S.D. Miss. July 1, 2011)...

TrevorD | 08 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

A big welcome to Clearwell, customers, partners and employees!  Today, Clearwell Systems, a leader in eDiscovery, is now part of Symantec.  This means our two teams are officially working together to provide both Clearwell and Symantec customers exceptional end-to-end information management solutions spanning archiving, backup and eDiscovery.

We have already begun work on more robust integration between Clearwell and Enterprise Vault.  Our goal is to provide Symantec customers access to enhanced eDiscovery functionality and Clearwell customers access to a broader set of integrated information management solutions from one vendor – Symantec. Together we will help customers:

  • Reduce costs across all phases represented in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, from information management through review and production
  • Reduce risk by improving the defensibility and repeatability of their archiving and eDiscovery processes
  • ...
pfavro | 06 Jul 2011 | 0 comments

Is your firm still finding it difficult to retain or otherwise address social media communications as required by FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06?

FINRA promulgated Regulatory Notice 10-06 last year to protect investors from false or misleading claims and representations on social networking sites.  To that end, securities firms must develop protocols to supervise and retain social media content and ensure compliance by their representatives.

It is no secret that FINRA 10-06 continues to bedevil securities firms.  FINRA chairman and chief executive Richard Ketchum acknowledged as much at an industry event in Washington, D.C. last month.  Indeed, Ketchum promised further...

pfavro | 27 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

The landmark sanctions order in Phillip M. Adams & Associates v. Dell, 621 F.Supp.2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009) has been adopted by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart.  Finally made available to the public last week after a nine-month delay (http://1.usa.gov/lz5Ekj), Judge Stewart’s order (http://bit.ly/iT5ciG- PACER, sign-up req’d) fully embraced the magistrate’s holding that organizations have an obligation to preserve relevant evidence after the duty to preserve attaches.  The court thus imposed a negative inference jury instruction against defendants Asustek Computer and Asus Computer Intl. for their evidence spoliation.  It should come as no surprise that the jury then returned a verdict against those defendants.

With the Adams sanction order finally in the books, it is worth reviewing why that decision was so noteworthy....

pfavro | 17 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

Do you think the risk of discovery sanctions is overblown?

For litigants who became “newsworthy” because they were sanctioned, the answer is no. 

But many organizations observe their discovery obligations as if sanctions were no threat at all.  They feel little incentive to implement a process that will have the company prepared for litigation.  http://bit.ly/jjWNR6  Worse, there are others who view discovery misconduct – e.g., refusals to produce documents in response to requests or orders – as “tactically advantageous.”  See Lee v. Max Intern., LLC, --- F.3d --- (10th Cir. 2011), http://bit.ly/kg4n6L.  Whether intentional or inadvertent, such conduct unreasonably lengthens the litigation process and increases the expense for all involved.  It also belies the mandate from Federal...

pfavro | 15 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

The eDiscovery frenzy that has gripped the American legal system over the past decade has largely eluded our European counterparts.  This is due in large part to the broad and fastidious protections of European privacy laws.  Another reason is found in Europe’s narrower discovery rules, which forbid categorical document requests authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The result is that many companies that operate in Europe may feel insulated from the need to implement eDiscovery-related information governance procedures.

Having a laissez-faire attitude toward information governance is troubling enough.  But taking no action to prepare for eDiscovery is worse.  That is especially the case for companies operating in Europe that maintain offices in the United States.  They may unwittingly fall into an “American style” discovery trap for unsuspecting litigants in foreign proceedings.  That discovery trap is 28 U....

pfavro | 14 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

Is your organization adequately prepared for a lawsuit?  Or are you still trying to develop an internal process for addressing document productions in litigation?

Preparing a litigation response effort is an essential aspect of a company’s information governance plan.  Failing to take the initiative in this regard often leads to higher legal costs and increased risks during litigation.  The Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Development (N.D. Ca. June 6, 2011) case from last week is particularly instructive on this issue.

In Vieste, the court sanctioned several real estate developers for submitting inadequate declarations regarding their document preservation efforts.  Those declarations reveal an overall failure to prepare for litigation.  Among other things, the defendant developers did not issue a litigation hold; did not suspend the overwrite function of one of their computer systems; and waited several months to contact...

pfavro | 09 Jun 2011 | 0 comments

Today's news about the consumer data security breach at Citigroup underscores the need for a secure cloud offering.  Citigroup acknowledged today that hackers had penetrated its systems, exposing sensitive data regarding credit card customers.  http://nyti.ms/lZeLBM

Regardless of which systems were hacked, this news supports the need for companies to closely scrutinize cloud offerings for their data storage.  It is not enough for a cloud provider to offer cheap and unlimited storage.  Companies must satisfy themselves that appropriate security measures are in place when data is transferred and stored in the cloud.  Otherwise, sensitive business and consumer information could be subject to disclosure and misuse.

Proper safekeeping measures should include an encryption protocol that provides security for data transfers to and from the cloud.  Multi-layered firewalls that prevent...