A lot has been discussed about the most recent changes to the Federal
Rules, especially with regard to Rule 37(e) and the requirement of the
intent to deprive standard to apply more serious sanctions.  But, what
activities constitute intent to deprive?  Should failing to issue a
litigation hold be considered intent to deprive a party of potentially
responsive ESI when that ESI is not preserved?

Rule 37(e)(2) says the following:



http://bit.ly/2pwW77N
http://bit.ly/2pwW77N+


-- 
Peterk
Dallas, Tx
[log in to unmask]
Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org
“If only there were a massive entity that I were forced to fund to tell me
how I should live my life, since I’m so obviously incapable of deciding for
myself.” M. Hashimoto

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]