Limits to the Duty to Preserve | Rogers Towers - Florida Banking Law -
JDSupra
The court noted that although Cisco had a general duty to preserve evidence
when it destroyed the employee’s documents, the scope of this duty was not
limitless. Stated succinctly, “[a] litigant has an obligation to preserve
only evidence ‘which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the
action.” As Judge Scheindlin held in *Zublake*, “[r]equiring a litigant to
preserve all documents, regardless of their relevance, would cripple
parties who are often involved in litigation or are under the threat of
litigation.” Previously, this “relevance” applied only to the relevance of
the requested document to the litigation, but *AMC* appears to expand the
meaning of relevance to include whether it is reasonably foreseeable that
the custodian of such information would be relevant to the litigation.

 http://bit.ly/1oNunHx

Source:
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/limits-to-the-duty-to-preserve-18132/?utm_source=jds&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=law_practice
See if people are clicking on this link: http://bit.ly/1oNunHx+
Try the bitly.com sidebar to see who is talking about a page on the web:
https://bitly.com/pages/sidebar

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]