Link to article by Thomas Y. Allman and Kevin F. Brady posted on Law.com, December 12, 2007:

The evolution of electronic discovery has been marked by assertions that a party must preserve and produce electronic information that initially seems well beyond what would normally be considered discoverable. The first of these “cutting edge” cases, and arguably one of the most prescient, was the 1980 decision in National Union Electric v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 494 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1980), in which the court held that “common sense” required production of information in machine-readable format over an objection that the information did not exist in the precise form sought and was therefore not discoverable. The court opined that the difference between producing printouts and producing the data in computer-readable form was a “distinction without a difference.” As later explained in Daewoo Electronics Co. v. U.S., 650 F. Supp. 1003 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986), the court was “not requiring [the party] to create something new or to render exceptional assistance. It [was] simply requiring that an existing body of data be transmitted in a reasonably usable way with a modicum of cooperation.”…

Press release: Enables Organizations to Forensically Preserve and Protect All Emails and Files Relevant to Litigation, Without the Need for Continuous Network Connections

Cambridge, UK and Pleasanton, Calif. – December 3, 2007 - ZANTAZ, an Autonomy company and the leader in the archiving, eDiscovery and Proactive Information Risk Management (IRM) markets, (LSE: AU. or AU.L), today announced Desktop Legal Hold, the industry’s first comprehensive solution that enables corporate legal and IT departments to remotely enforce legal hold across desktops and laptops. Unlike other systems, Desktop Legal Hold does not require a continuous network connection for discovery. Information and metadata are preserved locally and continuously in real-time. The solution locks down the original files in place and can return them when an Internet connection is established. Applying advanced conceptual and keyword legal search, all information relevant to legal matters is preserved, maintaining the audit trail and forensic credibility while dramatically reducing the legal risk of fines and sanctions associated with non-compliance to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for E-Discovery. Read the rest of this entry »

Article by Pete Yost posted on Law.com, November 13, 2007:

A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails, a move that Bush administration lawyers had argued strongly against.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directed the Executive Office of the President to safeguard the material in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether the White House has destroyed e-mails in violation of federal law….

Article by Richard Raysman and Peter Brown posted on Law.com, November 13, 2007:

Over-stuffed file cabinets that hold business records and personal information have been replaced by compact computer hard drives that offer easy and convenient storage of and access to a variety of items, including correspondence, forms, memos, photos, account information and Internet transactions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Press release:  Leading E-Discovery Consulting Firm to Adopt Innovative New Legal Hold and E-Discovery Solution

Chicago, Illinois, October 29, 2007 – DiscoveryBox announced today that its integrated legal hold and e-discovery software product has been selected by Strategic Discovery, Inc. (Strategic Discovery) to be implemented on a beta test basis.  Strategic Discovery, a consulting firm that provides litigation and records management services to global Fortune 500 companies, is interested in the ability of DiscoveryBox to assist its clients in streamlining their e-discovery processes and in reducing e-discovery costs. Read the rest of this entry »

Electronic discovery audio conference: Central time. National Constitution Center. Read the rest of this entry »

Article by Christy Burke posted on Law.com, October 23, 2007:

Exploring the issues surrounding chain of custody for electronic evidence may sound like a great cure for insomnia — the prospect of filling out endless log forms is enough to put anyone to sleep. But a string of recent judicial sanctions over chain of custody for electronic evidence has made the dry issue a hot topic — one that can make or break your case….

Article by Beth Bar posted on Law.com, October 5, 2007:

Saying that a “lack of frankness in discovery can have unintended and damaging consequences,” a Manhattan federal magistrate judge has sanctioned plaintiffs for failure to preserve evidence in a consolidated securities fraud action against underwriters CIBC and Schroder.

Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV said that the plaintiffs, who are purchasers of preferred stock or senior notes of the now-bankrupt WRT Energy Corporation, had an obligation to preserve certain documents that were in the possession of WRT’s successor. He also said the purchasers should have alerted CIBC and Schroder before allowing the successor to destroy the documents in question….

Electronic discovery audio conference:  Central time.  ALI-ABA. Read the rest of this entry »

Article by Alan M. Anderson published in Bench & Bar of Minnesota, Vol. 64, No. 7, August 2007: Courts increasingly are interpreting the obligation to preserve evidence as one that attaches as soon as a party reasonably anticipates litigation or a government investigation. Corporations and their counsel must therefore exercise added care to ensure that relevant documents and other materials are preserved and managed in good faith.

The law imposes on litigants and those subject to government investigation a duty to preserve evidence. The duty runs to all employees and agents, but particularly to senior management and to the lawyers representing an organization. There has been a growing trend among courts to interpret the obligation to preserve evidence as one that attaches as soon as a party reasonably anticipates litigation or a government investigation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, for example, explicitly addresses the destruction, alteration or falsification of materials with the intent to impede or influence an existing or contemplated investigation. Therefore, in some instances, the duty can attach even before a lawsuit is actually filed or before receipt of formal notice of a government investigation….