Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice.

On March 30, 2007, Fish & Neave sponsored a training on information technology practices in federal court.  The firm also gave away orange fish squeezies.

The speakers discussed the case of Coleman Holdings vs. Morgan Stanley and the discovery of electronically stored information.  Electronically stored data influences the cost of litigation because of the volume involved and the difficulty of review.  The federal law gives some protections from sanctions for destroying information due to routine operation under civil procedure rule 37(f).  There is a safe harbor for the destruction of electronically stored information under civil procedure rule 37(f).

Reasonableness and fair play remain the guideline for retention of information.  Rule 26(b)(2)(B) of the civil procedure code discusses how a party does not need to provide discovery of electronically stored information when the party is not able to access the information due to cost burdens.  To reduce costs, the speakers advised for companies to know what electronically stored information sources they have, whether they be databases, computer systems, servers, networks; and what type of information is kept where.

Case illustrations of rule 26(b)(2)(B) include Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, 2006 WL 3825291 (E.D. Mo. 2006) where employee trade secret litigation involved the deletion of files from hard drives.