Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help

Symantec eDiscovery

Showing posts tagged with Litigation Hold
Showing posts in English
Sanctions – Putting Teeth into Your Litigation Response Effort
pfavro | 20 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 Rule 1 to discover efficiently...

Read more
Observing Best Practices for Your Litigation Response Effort
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...

Read more
The Uncertain Landscape for National eDiscovery Standards
pfavro | 16 May 2011 | 0 comments

Last year’s landmark opinion in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) was heralded as an eDiscovery gold standard.  Following the Zubulake cases, Pension Committee established bright line rules on data retention, litigation response efforts and sanctions.  Such rules, in turn, strengthened the call for additional eDiscovery standards that were not addressed by the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the impact of Pension Committee on eDiscovery practice and jurisprudence, subsequent case law reveals the difficulty in crafting national eDiscovery standards.  Several courts have declined to follow the Pension Committee rubric, particularly as it relates to litigation holds.  Indeed, over the past three weeks, three different courts have distinguished the sweeping Pension Committee...

Read more
Upgrade to Enterprise Vault 10 to Enhance Information Governance
pfavro | 11 May 2011 | 0 comments

Are you still on the fence about upgrading to Enterprise Vault 10?  Yet another reason to get the latest version of Enterprise Vault is that it may help your organization minimize litigation risks.  Who doesn’t want to stay out of lawsuits and reduce litigation costs?

Enterprise Vault 10 can help your organization do so though its Data Classification Services technology.  At its heart, Data Classification Services empowers organizations to establish more effective information governance procedures.  Companies are able to better analyze and retain information that is significant or that must be kept – and nothing else.

Available initially for Microsoft Exchange Server, Data Classification Services intelligently analyzes content as email is archived into Enterprise Vault.  Through established retention protocols, email is then tagged and characterized insomuch that it can be searched for and retrieved with greater efficiency. ...

Read more
Overhauling Your Data Management with a Top-Down Information Governance Approach
pfavro | 02 May 2011 | 0 comments

Is your company still placing too much trust in its workers to decide what documents the company should or should not keep?

Did you know that courts frequently fault organizations for delegating primary responsibility to their employees for data preservation and production? 

One such case from this year – Northington v. H&M International (N.D.Ill. Jan. 12, 2011) – involved a company that had no formal policy regarding the retention of company data.  Into this vacuum stepped operations-level employees – including some accused by the plaintiff of harassment – who were left with the task of managing, identifying and collecting their emails.  Predictably, key documents went missing and the court had little choice but to inform the jury that the company destroyed evidence.

Contrast the scenario in Northington with a company that “got” information governance.  In Viramontes v. U.S....

Read more