Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:08:29 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Note in the reference below that the judge actually penalized the law
firm on their fee because they chose to print the electronic records to
paper.
> The Cricket Technologies case index has been updated.
> Log in here: http://igdev.crickettechnologies.com/case_studies/search
> to search the case index or change your user preferences.
>
> ________________________________________________
> Updated cases:
> In re Instinet Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, No. Civ. A 1289-N,
> 2005 WL 3501708 (Del. Ct. Chan. Dec. 14, 2005) (updated on Dec/29/2005
> 04:22 pm EST)
>
> Categories: Electronic Searching, Cost Allocation
>
> Summary: In a class action shareholder litigation that was settled,
> the Delaware Court of Chancery reduced plaintiffs' attorneys fee claim
> by $1 million (75% of the total claim) for "obvious" inefficiencies in
> plaintiffs' counsel's managing electronic discovery. Specifically, the
> court criticized plaintiffs' counsel for printing electronic documents
> produced in a digital format rather than reviewing and searching the
> documents electronically. The court stated that plaintiffs' counsel's
> decision to "blow back" the digital documents to paper "both added
> unnecessary expense and greatly increased the number of hours required
> to search and review the document production."
In several other cases they discussed failure to maintain certain
electronic records and the court seems to be taking a harder and harder
line on spoliation. If you are going to have electronic document and
email then you better make sure that you can protect them. The court
also ruled that at the onset of litigation special responsibilities
exist to protect electronic records.
So as Clint Eastwood would say:
1) Are you feeling lucky?
2) What is the relationship between RM and IT once litigation occurs?
3) What program will be put in motion once you and IT become aware of a
new and special requirement to protect all electronic records?
I know! I know! I myself did not realize that Clint was such a
stickler about electronic records discovery. But I am not one to argue
with Clint.
I really recommend the Cricket Technologies news service for RM's and
IT alike.
Sign up for it, and when it comes in, saunter down to the Head of the
Legal Department and ask if he/she has time for a cup of coffee. Then
tell them that while they are out at Starbucks to bring you back one as
well and be specific! Ask for two sugars and just a hint of vanilla and
creme.
Oh wait, that is just silly!! (Larry did you spit your coffee on the
monitor again?)
Really, use the case verdicts to discuss how your organization would
react to a lawsuit based on your IT and RM policies and would things
occur seamlessly? Suggest a meeting with IT to see how it should all
work. This kind of preemptive action can make you look like a genius.
It would be interesting to know what happened to the RM and IT people
after each of these cases came to closure.
Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[log in to unmask]
(610) 756-4440 Fax (610) 756-4134
WWW.FIRELOCK.COM
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
|
|