Morgan Stanley Team 2. Background Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2005 LEXIS 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 23, 2005.) The jury returned.

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

Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.

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.

Qualcomm Incorporated, v. Broadcom Corporation.  U.S. Federal Court Rules of Civil Procedure – amended rules December 1, 2006 to include electronically.

Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.

Coleman (Parent) Holdings v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. Florida Circuit Court – March 1, 2005 Cite as: 2005 WL (Fla.Cir.Ct.)

What is so special about ediscovery? By Jennifer Tomlin Sanchez.

248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007) Doe v. Norwalk Community College.

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.

Law and Computer Security E-Discovery Bahareh Rahmani CS - University of Tulsa.

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.

Establishing a Defensible and Efficient Legal Hold Policy September 2013 Connie Hall, J.D., Manager, New Product Development, Thomson Reuters.

William P. Butterfield February 16, Part 1: Why Can’t We Cooperate?

E-Discovery in Government Investigations and Criminal Law JOLT Symposium February 22,

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.

5 Vital Components of Every Custodian Interview David Meadows, PMP, Managing Director – Discovery Consulting, Kroll Ontrack Dave Canfield, EJD, Managing.

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.

Information Security and Electronic Discovery

EDiscovery and Records Management. Records Management- Historical Perspective- Paper Historically- Paper was the “Corporate Memory” – a physical entity.

Records Management and Document Retention Stephanie L. Chandler, Esq. Jackson Walker L.L.P. North San Antonio Chamber of Commerce CFO Forum.

Allvision Computing By Legal For Legal 2007 Litigation Readiness Andrew Haslam.

1 Structuring your Information Management to Ensure Litigation Readiness Julian Ackert, Principal Washington DC John Forsyth, HBOS Edinburgh Andrew Haslam,

Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.

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.

©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

Perspectives on Discovery from an Attorney / Records Manager 3/15/2007 ©The Cadence Group, Inc Confidential & Proprietary Information is our Forté.

Discovery III Expert Witness Disclosure And Discovery Motions & Sanctions.

E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb.

Rewriting the Law in the Digital Age

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.

Advanced Civil Litigation Class 11Slide 1 Production of Documents Scope Scope Includes documents of all types, including pictures, graphs, drawings, videos.

244 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007). Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes Inc.

Against: The Liberal Definition and use of Litigation Holds Team 9.

P RINCIPLES 1-7 FOR E LECTRONIC D OCUMENT P RODUCTION Maryanne Post.

The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.

AMENDED FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ON ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION or “THE TALE OF RIP VAN LAWYER” PASBO ANNUAL CONFERENCE March 6, 2008 Hershey,

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.

CORPORATE RECORDS RETENTION POLICY TRAINING By: Diana C. Toman, Corporate Counsel & Assistant Secretary.

ILTA – Insight 2007 E-Disclosure --Preparing for Compliance-- Moderator: Sally Gonzalez, Director, Navigant Consulting, Inc. Panelists: Oz Benamram, Director.

1 Record Management, Electronic Discovery, and the Changing Legal Landscape Dino Tsibouris (614)

PA321: Time, Billing & Records Management Unit 3 Seminar - E-Discovery.

Defensible Records Retention and Preservation Linda Starek-McKinley Director, Records and Information Management Edward Jones

PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN ON E-DISCOVERY Gene Blanton.

E-discovery Discussion. 2 Policies and Procedures Do you have a set of e-discovery policies and procedures? – Who is the lead for e-discovery efforts.

Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Not Reported in So.2d, 2005 WL (Fla.Cir.Ct.) Ediscovery, Fall 2010 Francis Eiden.

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.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 236 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).

Morgan Stanley becomes Morgan Stainly Ruining the image of Morgan Stanley through unnecessary sanctions.

Leveraging the Data Map – A Case Study November 15, 2016

Records Management and Document Retention

Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation

Presentation transcript:

Morgan Stanley Team 2

Background Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2005 LEXIS 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 23, 2005.) The jury returned a verdict against Morgan Stanley fining them $1.45 billion. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2005 LEXIS 94 (Fla. Cir. Ct. March 23, 2005.) The jury returned a verdict against Morgan Stanley fining them $1.45 billion. Morgan Stanley violated Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37. and then took steps to cover it up, including coaching witnesses Morgan Stanley violated Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37. and then took steps to cover it up, including coaching witnesses Did not enforce “litigation hold” - it continued to overwrite after 12 months despite an SEC regulation requiring that they be preserved for two years. Also, failed to maintain in readily accessible format. Did not enforce “litigation hold” - it continued to overwrite after 12 months despite an SEC regulation requiring that they be preserved for two years. Also, failed to maintain in readily accessible format. Signed an Agreed Order to produce all relevant documents and then did not include 1600 of them stating they were archived and too difficult and expensive to recover. It was later proved these documents were easily searchable. Signed an Agreed Order to produce all relevant documents and then did not include 1600 of them stating they were archived and too difficult and expensive to recover. It was later proved these documents were easily searchable.

Relevant laws and Precedents SEC Rule 17a-4 SEC Rule 17a-4 1 st 2 years records must be in easily accessible place 1 st 2 years records must be in easily accessible place Morgan Stanley said too hard to find Morgan Stanley said too hard to find Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37 (Discovery Sanctions) Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37 (Discovery Sanctions) Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions If party fails to make required 26(a) disclosure any other party may move to compel disclosure & appropriate sanctions If party fails to make required 26(a) disclosure any other party may move to compel disclosure & appropriate sanctions Zubulake v. UBS Warburg Zubulake v. UBS Warburg Judge ordered UBS to restore deleted s from archives no matter the expense due to failing to preserve, and follow its retention policy Judge ordered UBS to restore deleted s from archives no matter the expense due to failing to preserve, and follow its retention policy Set an example for other companies that s are a vital part of a company Set an example for other companies that s are a vital part of a company

Prevention ERM ERM Defines Retention periods & locations Defines Retention periods & locations Prepare for documents needed in litigation Prepare for documents needed in litigation EDD Strategic Planning EDD Strategic Planning Define scope Define scope Document retention policies Document retention policies EDD Data Protection EDD Data Protection Readability Readability

Conclusion Morgan Stanley was an extreme case in that they attempted to cover up their violation of laws. Morgan Stanley was an extreme case in that they attempted to cover up their violation of laws. Many laws and precedents define production, destruction and handling of evidence. Many laws and precedents define production, destruction and handling of evidence. There are many steps a company can take to prevent being charged with spoliation. There are many steps a company can take to prevent being charged with spoliation.