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

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

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.
Effective Document Retention: Lean, Mean, But Not Spoiling You or Your Lawsuit Effective Document Retention: Lean, Mean, But Not Spoiling You or Your Lawsuit.
Public Records Office Indiana Access to Public Records Act and Responding to Subpoenas Employee Training.
Considerations for Records and Information Management Programs in Light of the Pension Committee and Rimkus Consulting 2010 Decisions.
248 F.R.D. 372 (D. Conn. 2007) Doe v. Norwalk Community College.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation Jason CISO – University of Connecticut October 30, 2014 Information Security Office.
INFORMATION WITHOUT BORDERS CONFERENCE February 7, 2013 e-DISCOVERY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.
Ronald J. Shaffer, Esq. Beth L. Weisser, Esq. Lorraine K. Koc, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel, Deb Shops, Inc. © 2010 Fox Rothschild DELVACCA.
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.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA) Training.
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.
1 A Practical Guide to eDiscovery in Litigation Presented by: Christopher N. Weiss Aric H. Jarrett Stoel Rives LLP Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA),
E-Discovery LIMITS ON E-DISCOVERY. No New Preservation Rule When does duty to preserve attach? Reasonably anticipated litigation. Audio sanctions.
Litigation Hold Overview Tom O’Connor Gulf Coast Legal Technology Center
Is Records Management Still Relevant? Sean Regan E-Discovery Product Marketing Manager Symantec Enterprise Vault.
E -nuff! : Practical Tips For Keeping s From Derailing Your Case Presented by Jerry L. Mitchell.
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,
Developing a Records & Information Retention & Disposition Program:
Electronic Communication “ Litigation Holds” Steven Raskovich University Counsel California State University PSSOA Conference – March 23, 2006.
IS Audit Function Knowledge
Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know
Electronic Communications State Owned System Mandates Presented by: Eileen Goldgeier.
©2011 Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley E-DISCOVERY Hélène Kazanjian Anne Sterman Trial Division.
DOCUMENT RETENTION ISSUES FOR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL Rebecca A. Brommel BrownWinick 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone:
Copyright© 2010 WeComply, Inc. All rights reserved. 9/19/2015 Record Management.
EDISCOVERY: ARE YOU PREPARED? Dennis P. Ogden Belin McCormick, P.C. 666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone: (515) Facsimile:
Michelle Groy Johnson Quality Improvement Officer Research Integrity Office Tough Love: Understanding the Purpose and Processes of Quality Assurance.
E-Discovery in Health Care Litigation By Tracy Vigness Kolb.
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.
MATT DOW Jackson Walker L.L.P. February 14, 2007.
Against: The Liberal Definition and use of Litigation Holds Team 9.
Public Review Committee Linda Sullivan-Colglazier Assistant Attorney General July 28, 2011.
The Challenge of Rule 26(f) Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer July 15, 2011.
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.
Session 6 ERM Case Law: The Annual MER Update of the Latest News, Trends, & Issues Hon. John M. Facciola United States District Court, District of Columbia.
PA321: Time, Billing & Records Management Unit 3 Seminar - E-Discovery.
MER 2012: T1 – Achieving Enterprise Content and Records Management with SharePoint John Isaza, Esq., FAI Partner Legal Developments & Rules Affecting SharePoint.
Defensible Records Retention and Preservation Linda Starek-McKinley Director, Records and Information Management Edward Jones
Digital Government Summit
Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. Not Reported in So.2d, 2005 WL (Fla.Cir.Ct.) Ediscovery, Fall 2010 Francis Eiden.
Emerging Case Law and Recent eDiscovery Decisions.
Legal Holds Department of State Division of Records Management Kevin Callaghan, Director.
Zubulake IV [Trigger Date]
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
E-Discovery, Destruction Considerations and Legal Holds Mark Henriques Partner Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP.
Record Retention to Manage Risk F. Jay Meyer Vice President & Senior Attorney TD Banknorth, N.A. Portland, Maine.
1 PRESERVATION: E-Discovery Marketfare Annunciation, LLC, et al. v. United Fire &Casualty Insurance Co.
EDiscovery Also known as “ESI” Discovery of “Electronically Stored Information” Same discovery, new form of storage.
Title of Presentation Technology and the Attorney-Client Relationship: Risks and Opportunities Jay Glunt, Ogletree DeakinsJohn Unice, Covestro LLC Jennifer.
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Midwest Division, Inc 2007 WL (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
Investigations: Strategies and Recommendations (Hints and Tips) Leah Lane, CFE Director, Global Investigations, Texas Instruments, Inc.
#16PACE Preparing For The Inevitable... How To Be Ready When The Lawsuit Comes And Steps To Proactively Limit Corporate Inconvenience And Liability Mitchell.
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.
When the law firm is the client Handling legal holds, document collections and productions of your own firm’s documents.
Legal Holds: Educating Company Employees About Document Preservation
E-DISCOVERY The Sophomore Year May 20, 2010.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation
Presentation transcript:

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

AGENDA Definition of a legal hold Triggers for sending a legal hold Legal hold notification criteria Best practices –Create and use templates –Ask questions of the custodians –Document, document, document –Communicate with the custodians –Automate the process Preserve the custodians’ data Current state of the law Questions 2

A legal (or litigation) hold is: The process serves to: Advise employees of document preservation requirements in the face of existing or anticipated lawsuit or investigation Suspend normal document retention/destruction practices Provide proof that company understands its duty to preserve relevant documentation and to notify custodians of record of this duty 3 An instruction within a business organization directing employees to preserve (and refrain from destroying or modifying) certain records and information that may be relevant to a pending or anticipated lawsuit or investigation. WHAT IS A LEGAL HOLD?

TRIGGERING EVENTS Complaint or otherwise put on notice of a lawsuit Subpoena for information as a third party to an existing lawsuit Formal investigation order from a US regulatory body Reasonably anticipate – or should reasonably anticipate – a potential legal claim 4

INITIAL STEPS Develop a policy outlining a process for handling legal holds –Include both notification and collection/preservation processes Ensure that the process is repeatable, automated and defensible 5

WRITTEN LEGAL HOLD NOTICE CRITERIA Overview Clear description of the subject matter of the litigation or investigation Explanation of the duty to preserve and warnings to the recipient of the consequences of non-compliance Explanation of ongoing duty to preserve; hold does not end until further notice Scope Guidelines re: applicable date ranges for, and types of, documents to be preserved Instructions Explicit instructions not to destroy or modify records, with examples of the records that should be preserved Contact details for corporate counsel in charge of issuing and enforcing the litigation hold 6

BEST PRACTICES Create and use templates –Helps to ensure that uniform message is delivered and that nothing is missed Ask questions of the custodians –What do you have? Where? What format? –Do you know anyone else with information? Communicate with the custodians –Make it easy for them to ask questions Document, document, document 7

SENDING THE LEGAL HOLD 8 An effective legal hold captures information that is relevant to the litigation / investigation; therefore, only people who have that information (“custodians”) will be subject to the hold. CUSTODIANS are individuals who were involved in the events relating to the potential or pending lawsuit or who may possess knowledge of issues relating to the potential or pending law suit. OTHER PARTICIPANTS may include: IT & records personnel Human resources Legal department Support staff Former employees 3 rd parties, such as outsourced- service or storage facility providers Note: Your legal hold policy should specify how broadly or narrowly to target hold notifications.

WHAT RECORDS MUST BE PRESERVED? 9 Employee files and workspaces Document warehouses s Voic s Computer and external hard drive data Videos Back-up tapes Social media records Hand-held digital device content (cell phones, smartphones, tablets) Relevant evidence may exist in paper or electronic form and companies must preserve this evidence regardless of the media in which it exists.

CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILING TO IMPLEMENT A LEGAL HOLD Monetary penalties, such as payment of the adversary’s legal fees and costs Adverse inference instruction(s) to the jury relating to information that was lost or destroyed Preclusion of evidence to support a claim or defense In extreme cases, default judgment or dismissal 10 Failure to timely institute and maintain a litigation hold can have serious consequences for a company. US courts sanction companies for failing to adequately implement litigation holds.

STATE OF THE LAW Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Zubulake IV”) (setting forth clear standards for scope of duty to preserve evidence) Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (stating that “by failing to do as little as issue a litigation hold notice to any employees for eight months after its preservation duty arose, and by further delaying issuance of litigation hold notices to several key custodians … Apple acted with not just simple negligence but rather conscious disregard of its duty to preserve.”) Chin v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1724, 185 L. Ed. 2d 785 (U.S. 2013) (applying gross negligence standard, rather than gross negligence per se, for failure to implement litigation hold, abrogating Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs., LLC, 685 F. Supp.2d 456 (S.D. N.Y. 2010) Botell v. United States, 2013 WL (E.D. Cal. 2013) report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2013 WL (E.D. Cal. 2013) (defendant deemed negligent as sanction for spoliation of evidence in case where no litigation hold was issued) Sekisui Am. Corp. v. Hart, 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (stating that failure to issue litigation hold was “inexcusable”) 11

SUMMARY: AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE Corporate counsel are on the front lines of protecting a company against litigation. But litigation is almost inevitable, so being prepared counts. The challenges of managing the growing base of electronic data requires companies to implement and enforce document retention/destruction policies. A company has a duty to preserve relevant documents and records in connection with known or anticipated litigation. A company must suspend litigation destruction and send litigation hold notices to custodians of records. Failure to do so will result in severe legal repercussions. 12

QUESTIONS? 13