RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Taina Makinen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:24:49 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Here's an interesting excerpt from this month's Case Law Update from Kroll Ontrack (www.krollontrack.com) that mentions different discovery requirements for e-mail and chatroom discussions. On the last sentence, I've added emphasis for... um... emphasis:
 
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006). In this trademark infringement case, the plaintiff moved for discovery sanctions against the defendant, claiming the defendant failed to do the following: conduct complete or timely searches for electronic documents, issue a proper litigation hold, and preserve chat room discussions taking place on the defendant's Web site. Denying the plaintiff's motion, the court found no discovery misconduct. Instead, the court questioned the plaintiff's delay in raising these discovery issues and stated the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendant's discovery production was materially incomplete. The court noted an ambiguity as to whether some employees' e-mail accounts had been searched and ordered the defendant to confirm this in writing.  The court also found that the defendant's failure to instruct certain employees to preserve documents after the lawsuit was either imminent or already pending did not result in any relevant documents being destroyed. **Lastly, the court held that chat room discussions on the defendant's Web site would not fall under the same discovery requirements as e-mail, and the defendant could not be sanctioned for failure to preserve the discussions.**
----------------------
 
It's unfortunate that this summary doesn't specify the reason for the decision about the discoverability of chatroom discussions. Would anyone on the listserv care to opine?
 
Cheers,
Taina Makinen
Vital Records Specialist
Canadian Tire Corporation
***********************************************************************************************************************
This message, including any attachments, is privileged and may contain confidential information intended only for the person(s) named above.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and permanently delete the original transmission from the sender, including any attachments, without making a copy.  Thank you.
 
Ce message, y compris toutes ses pièces jointes, est confidentiel et peut contenir des renseignements destinés uniquement aux personnes dont le nom est indiqué ci-dessus. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu ou si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur immédiatement, en lui répondant par courriel. Veuillez aussi supprimer définitivement le message original de l'expéditeur, y compris toute pièce jointe, sans faire de copie. Merci.
 
 
 
 
 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2