Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know www.xactdatadiscovery.com.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
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.
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.
Litigation Holds: Don’t Live in Fear of Spoliation Jason CISO – University of Connecticut October 30, 2014 Information Security Office.
1 As of April 2014 Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
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.
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?
Ethical Issues in Data Security Breach Cases Presented by Robert J. Scott Scott & Scott, LLP
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 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.
17th Annual ARMA Metro Maryland Spring Seminar Confidentiality, Access, and Use of Electronic Records.
Information Security and Electronic Discovery
E -nuff! : Practical Tips For Keeping s From Derailing Your Case Presented by Jerry L. Mitchell.
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.
1 © Copyright 2008 EMC Corporation. All rights reserved. Litigation Response Planning: eDiscovery Best Practices Stephen O’Leary Sr. eDiscovery and Compliance.
Outsourcing: The Ethical Issues Steven M. Richman November 2014.
Internal Auditing and Outsourcing
Investigating & Preserving Evidence in Data Security Incidents Robert J. Scott Scott & Scott, LLP
©2011 Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley E-DISCOVERY Hélène Kazanjian Anne Sterman Trial Division.
HIPAA PRIVACY AND SECURITY AWARENESS.
The Sedona Principles 1-7
EDISCOVERY: ARE YOU PREPARED? Dennis P. Ogden Belin McCormick, P.C. 666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA Telephone: (515) Facsimile:
Attorney-Client Privilege and Privacy Considerations Between US Corporations & Foreign Affiliates General Counsel Conference, Washington, D.C. October.
Discovery III Expert Witness Disclosure And Discovery Motions & Sanctions.
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.
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.
Practice Management Quality Control
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.
1 Record Management, Electronic Discovery, and the Changing Legal Landscape Dino Tsibouris (614)
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.
Defensible Records Retention and Preservation Linda Starek-McKinley Director, Records and Information Management Edward Jones
Records Management for Paper and ESI Document Retention Policies addressing creation, management and disposition Minimize the risk and exposure Information.
PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN ON E-DISCOVERY Gene Blanton.
Primary Changes To The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Effective December 1, 2015 Presented By Shuman, McCuskey, & Slicer, PLLC.
Copyright © 2015 Bradley & Riley PC - All rights reserved. October 30, 2015 IA ACC 2 nd Annual Corp. Counsel Forum Timothy J. Hill Laura M. Hyer N EW F.
Emerging Case Law and Recent eDiscovery Decisions.
The Sedona Principles November 16, Background- What is The Sedona Conference The Sedona Conference is an educational institute, established in 1997,
Zubulake IV [Trigger Date]
Electronic Discovery Guidelines Meet and Confer - General definition. a requirement of courts that before certain types of motions and/or petitions will.
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.
EDiscovery Also known as “ESI” Discovery of “Electronically Stored Information” Same discovery, new form of storage.
Proposed and Recent Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Title of Presentation Technology and the Attorney-Client Relationship: Risks and Opportunities Jay Glunt, Ogletree DeakinsJohn Unice, Covestro LLC Jennifer.
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
Electronic Discovery Guidelines FRCP 26(f) mandates that parties “meaningfully meet and confer” to consider the nature of their respective claims and defenses.
© Copyright DTI CONFIDENTIAL 1 Adam Bottner, Esq. Director of Business Development DTI April 15, 2016.
#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.
2015 Civil Rules Amendments. I. History of Rule 26 Amendments.
Legal Holds: Educating Company Employees About Document Preservation
Federal Rules Update Effective Dec. 1, 2015.
Presentation transcript:

Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know

eDiscovery Best Practices and the Role of Information Governance XACT

Electronic Discovery Best Practices XACT

eDiscovery and Information Governance Key Concepts for Discussion: What is eDiscovery? Why is Information Governance key to successful eDiscovery? What are the building blocks to successful Information Governance? How does Information Governance inform eDiscovery? Who needs to be involved in eDiscovery process? What does Legal need to know about Information Governance? What does Information Governance need to know about Legal XACT

Step 1: Litigation Readiness Successful eDiscovery starts with Preparation –Sets the stage for Preservation Managing Risk – Records Management Program –Establish a team Buy-In of key stakeholders – executive sponsor, records management, legal, IT, compliance –Develop program and define strategic plan –Develop mission and vision Mission: purpose of program Vision: 2-3 years down the road –Senior management support –Define services performed “in-house” and consultants XACT

Litigation Readiness Conduct Records Inventory –Records: recorded information created or received by your organization in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business, and has value requiring its retention –Non-Records: reference materials, personal papers, junk mail, publications, convenience file, duplicate copies –Vital records: records which would be needed immediately after an emergency to continue your organization’s operation –Archival records: historical records of enduring value that are preserved and stored in your organization's archives Establish records management policies and procedures Develop records retention program Implement records management training program XACT

Litigation Readiness The Cost of not being Prepared… –examples of information governance failures: $171 MILLION: Out-of-pocket remediation costs to a data breach affecting 100 million persons. $8.5 MILLION: Sanctions for failure to locate and produce ESI in litigation. $1 MILLION: Fine for failure to retain immigration records per regulation. $11 MILLION: settlement with the U.S. Government for record- keeping violations under the Controlled Substances Act –Source: The Sedona Conference® “Principles of Information Governance” XACT

The Importance of Best Practices –“eDiscovery is a Discipline” “In short, this is a complex, high-risk task that requires specialized skills and experience. It is not something one does once a year and gets good at.” LeClairRyan partner Dennis Kiker. –Potential ethical violationsethical violations –Expectation of competence –Standard ESI Orders being adopted by courts in an attempt to standardize certain practices –Courts stress – Communication, Proportionality, Cooperation XACT

ABA Model Rule 1.1 – Competence –A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Comment –To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology… Reminder: An Attorney’s Ethical Duty XACT

“The difference between best practice and malpractice is where the red line of unreasonable negligence is drawn.” XACT

Model Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding ESI (Sept. 20, 2013) – –Duty of counsel to pursue eDiscovery education Potential for Legal Malpractice resulting from eDiscovery mistakes: –J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. McDermott Will & Emery (California Supreme Court, Los Angeles County — Central District, Case No.: BC ) Sample Order on Professional Responsibility and Conduct –The State of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion Interim No Importance of Ethics & Duty of Education XACT

Step 2: Preservation Activities Working toward proper Preservation: –Communication - determine the who, what, where, why and how Establish a process in-house Involve outside counsel Tracking –Identify the key players IT Information Governance Manager –Identify relevant ESI Where is ESI stored Identify sources Are there retention/deletion schedules in place? Determine whether ESI is accessible Back-up tapes? Available on other sources? XACT

Preservation - Your Obligation Ethical Duty – “The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation.” (The Sedona Principles – Principle 5) The Duty: –“The obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” Zubulake IV The Scope of The Duty: –Identify the Who – who are the custodians Who has discoverable information related to claims Who prepared documents Third-parties? Former employees? –Identify the What – what form of ESI All relevant documents that existed when the duty attached All documents created since – that are relevant –Where is ESI stored? XACT

Preservation Activities The Litigation Hold: –Suspend routine document retention/destruction policies –preserve and protect against destruction –ID Key players – counsel, employees, IT, Information Management Advise on duty to preserve –Issue a written litigation hold to key players, supervisors, former employees, third-parties –Periodically Reissue –Attorney’s Duty to Monitor – Zubulake V “Counsel must become fully familiar with her client’s document retention policies, as well as the client’s data retention architecture.” Must take affirmative steps to monitor compliance so that all sources of discoverable information are identified and searched. –Duty to supplement per FRCP 26(e) T XACT

The Consequences….. Spoliation: –Adverse Inference Instructions –Dismissal of Claims –Sanctions E-discovery sanctions, such as an award of $8.5 million in monetary sanctions against patent holder for willfully failing to produce tens of thousands of discoverable documents –Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL (N.D. Cal. January 7, 2008) vacated in part by Qualcomm v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05CV1958-RMB (BLM), 2008 WL (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2008); see also Day v. LSI Corp., No. CIV 11–186–TUC–CKJ, 2012 WL (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2012) (awarding partial default judgment and attorney's fee award of $10,000, resulting from the loss of information that should have been retained according to both a document retention policy and a litigation hold that was not properly enforced); Pillay v. Millard Refrigerated Servs., Inc., No. 09 C 5725, 2013 WL (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2013) (issuing adverse inference instruction against a company for failing to stop the automatic deletion of employee productivity tracking data, which it had used as a reason for terminating a disabled employee). –Source: The Sedona Conference® “Principles of Information Governance” XACT

Proposed Amendment to Rule 37(e) FAILURE TO PRESERVE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, the court may: –(1) Order measures no greater than necessary to cure the loss of information, including permitting additional discovery; requiring the party to produce information that would otherwise not be reasonably accessible; and ordering the party to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the loss, including attorney’s fees. –(2) Upon a finding of prejudice to another party from loss of the information, order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice. –(3) Only upon a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. –[(4) In applying Rule 37(e), the court should consider all relevant factors, including: (A) the extent to which the party was on notice that litigation was likely and that the information would be relevant; (B) the reasonableness of the party’s efforts to preserve the information; (C) the proportionality of the preservation efforts to any anticipated or ongoing litigation; and (D) whether, after commencement of the action, the party timely sought the court's guidance on any unresolved disputes about preserving discoverable information.] T XACT

More Preservation Activities: Collection Collection: –Preserve and protect against alteration Determine if Forensic Data Capture is necessary Preserve Metadata Ensure proper collection tools are utilized – self-collection? –Defensibility Attorneys cannot rely upon assurances from their clients, must personally verify that all discoverable ESI has been identified, preserved, gathered, and produced – the Attorney signs the pleadings. T XACT

Goals: –Reduce cost and increase efficiencies –Communication with opposing counsel –Proportional Discovery A Successful Meet & Confer: –Be prepared to discuss the following: Preservation Systems that contain discoverable ESI Search and production –Agree on production procedures and form of data Phases of discovery Protective orders Opportunities to reduce costs and increase efficiencies –Cost sharing –Predictive Coding –Hosted Review Step 3 : Cooperation XACT

Cooperation Proclamation Sedona Conference, July 2008 A coordinated effort to promote cooperation by all parties to the discovery process to achieve the goal of a “Just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Reverse the current legal culture of adversarial discovery. Create model case management toolkits to facilitate Proportionality and Cooperation. Create network of trained electronic discovery mediators nationwide XACT

eDiscovery and Information Governance Key Concepts for Discussion: What is eDiscovery? Why is Information Governance key to successful eDiscovery? What are the building blocks to successful Information Governance? How does Information Governance inform eDiscovery? Who needs to be involved in eDiscovery process? What does Legal need to know about Information Governance? What does Information Governance need to know about Legal XACT

Xact Data Discovery People Technology Communication make discovery projects happen XACT DATA DISCOVERY Because you need to know XACT