Document Retention Archives - Page 2 of 3

On October 19, 2012

Obtaining electronic discovery from a city or municipality in civil litigation can be a slow process. But, in DMAC LLC and Fourmen Construction, Inc. v. City of Peekskill, plaintiffs’ task was made impossible because of the City of Peekskill’s failure to implement a “formal e-mail retention policy,” leaving it up to the “sole discretion” of City staff and elected officials whether to retain or delete their e mails. When the City and other defendants were sued in 2009 for stopping a real estate development project that began back in 2007, allegedly for political reasons, that lack of any e-mail retention policy came back to haunt the defendants.

New Jersey District Judge Upholds Sanctions for Camden County’s Grossly Negligent Litigation Hold Procedures

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 6, 2012

On March 21, 2012, New Jersey District Judge Noel Hillman upheld Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio’s ruling against Camden County, New Jersey (the “County”) for spoliation of evidence in an insurance dispute arising out of injuries to a motorist on a county road. State National Insurance Co. v. County of Camden, 08-cv-5128 (D.N.J. March 21, 2012). Judge Hillman’s March 21, 2012, decision addresses the County’s appeal of a June 30, 2011, decision of Judge Donio granting State National Insurance Company’s (“State National”) motion regarding the County’s failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). Specifically, the County failed to institute a litigation hold, to disable its automatic email deletion program, and to preserve copies of its backup tapes after litigation was commenced.

Recent Regulatory Guidance from the SEC on the Use of Social Media

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Corporate Information and Records Management Policies

On January 23, 2012

Broker-dealers and investment advisors face a variety of legal and compliance ramifications resulting from the expanding use of social media for business purposes. It is now commonplace that an entity or individual in the securities industry will employ a combination of social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn to market and network with their investors and potential investors. For example, an investment advisory firm may establish its own Facebook page where industry-related information may be posted, an investment advisor may “tweet” investment and wealth management strategies, or a registered representative may present his experience, licensures or his own opinions on trending stocks on his LinkedIn page.

Southern District of New York Implements Pilot Program to Require Early Identification & Resolution of E-Discovery Issues in Complex Cases

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On December 22, 2011

The Judicial Improvements Committee of the Southern District of New York issued a report announcing the initiation of a Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases (the “JIC Report”) in October 2011. The pilot project, which became effective on November 1, 2011, is designed to run for 18 months and for now, applies only to specific matters designated as “complex cases.” The project, which seeks to enhance the caliber of judicial case management, arose out of recommendations from the May 2010 Duke Conference on Civil Procedure and E-Discovery. This blog posting focuses on that portion of the pilot program devoted to the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”).

The Fifth Annual Gibbons E-Discovery Conference Closes With Helpful Guidance on Drafting Records Management Policies

by Phillip J. Duffy

Posted in Corporate Information and Records Management Policies / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On December 12, 2011

An effective and up-to-date set of records management policies may help companies reduce the likelihood of sanctions and other adverse consequences by ensuring records are retained and preserved in accordance with legal requirements, according to Gibbons Director Phillip Duffy; TechLaw Solutions’ Northeast Regional Director Michael Landau; and Inventus LLC Senior Consultant Bryan Melchionda.

The “Dos” and “Don’ts” of Litigation Hold Notices: Deconstructing the Effective Litigation Hold Notice

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On November 11, 2011

The “Dos” and “Don’ts” of litigation hold notices were discussed at the Fifth Annual Gibbons E-Discovery Conference on November 3, 2011. The distinguished panel included the Honorable John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J. (Ret.), the Director and Chair of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force Mark Sidoti, and Melissa DeHonney, an associate in the Gibbons Business & Commercial Litigation Department and member of the firm’s E-Discovery Task Force.

SEC Document Destruction Policy Suspended

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Corporate Information and Records Management Policies

On October 17, 2011

The SEC recently admonished its enforcement staff attorneys to cease any efforts to purge documents from investigative files amidst criticism that the agency wrongfully destroyed thousands of documents related to high profile enforcement matters, including major fraud investigations involving Wall Street banks. The cease order was disclosed in a letter last month from the SEC’s general counsel. The order was precipitated by a whistleblower — long-time SEC enforcement attorney Darcy Flynn — who advised key congressional representatives that the agency had destroyed thousands of investigative files from preliminary enforcement investigations (internally referred to as “MUIs” — or matters under inquiry).

Motion for Sanctions Denied Due to DuPont’s Reasonable, Professional Efforts to Implement and Update Litigation Hold Notices

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On July 5, 2011

On April 27, 2011, the Court denied Defendant Kolon Industries, Inc.’s (“Kolon”) motion for sanctions against E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) for alleged spoliation of four employees’ e-mail accounts and documents in litigation regarding trade secret misappropriation, theft of confidential information and other related business torts. E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09cv58, 2011 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2011). In essence, the Court concluded there was no spoliation because DuPont’s efforts to implement and update litigation hold notices – as well as the company’s commitment to its electronic discovery obligations – were reasonable.

The Rising Tide of Sanctions for E-Discovery Failures

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On March 21, 2011

To echo a popular tag line frequently heard on Top 40 radio stations, when it comes to court-imposed sanctions for e-discovery failures, “the hits just keep on comin’!” According to a recent study published in the Duke Law Journal, sanctions for e-discovery violations are occurring more frequently than ever. Dan H. Willoughby, Jr., Rose Hunter Jones, Gregory R. Antine, Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By The Numbers, 60 Duke Law J. 789 (2010). However, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, as it appears that the frequency of sanctions awards is trending downward after hitting an all-time high in 2009.

Orbit One: Inadequate ESI Preservation Does Not Merit Sanctions Absent Evidence That Relevant Information Has Been Destroyed

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 14, 2011

Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2010 WL 4615547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010) represents a dichotomy in jurisprudence on ESI preservation efforts and the imposition of automatic sanctions. In Orbit One, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV found that regardless of how inadequate a litigant’s preservation efforts may be, sanctions are not appropriate without proof that “information of significance” has been lost. The court determined that the threshold determination must be “whether any material that has been destroyed was likely relevant even for purposes of discovery.” In so holding, the court discussed and diverged from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decision in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, which earlier held that sanctions may be warranted for inadequate preservation efforts even if no relevant evidence is lost. 685 F. Supp.2d 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

Tagged: Document Retention

Broken Record? Maybe, But Even Government Entities Cannot Escape the Failure to Preserve

New Jersey District Judge Upholds Sanctions for Camden County’s Grossly Negligent Litigation Hold Procedures

Southern District of New York Implements Pilot Program to Require Early Identification & Resolution of E-Discovery Issues in Complex Cases

The “Dos” and “Don’ts” of Litigation Hold Notices: Deconstructing the Effective Litigation Hold Notice

SEC Document Destruction Policy Suspended

Motion for Sanctions Denied Due to DuPont’s Reasonable, Professional Efforts to Implement and Update Litigation Hold Notices

The Rising Tide of Sanctions for E-Discovery Failures

Orbit One: Inadequate ESI Preservation Does Not Merit Sanctions Absent Evidence That Relevant Information Has Been Destroyed

About Gibbons

Keyword/Tag Search

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories