Electronic Discovery Law – Page 424 – Legal issues, news and best practices relating to the discovery of electronically stored information.

Morgan Stanley Faces $10 Million Fine for Failure to Preserve Email

Sep 01 2005

AP Business reported Tuesday that Morgan Stanley (“Morgan”) is facing a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) fine of roughly $10 million in connection with a failure to preserve email.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the email may have been relevant to significant SEC actions against Morgan. It also reported that the SEC is alleging that Morgan falsely certified a document stating that it had produced all documents in connection with an investigation.

The AP story can be found here.

Court Affirms Adverse Inference Sanction and Inadmissibility of Spoliation-related Prejudicial Evidence

Aug 21 2005

Foust, et al. v. McFarland, et al., 698 N.W. 2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)

On May 15, 1998, Jeffrey L. Foust (“Foust”) suffered brain and other injuries when his vehicle was struck by a truck driven by John R. McFarland (“McFarland”). The truck had failed to yield at an intersection where traffic signals had been disabled by a storm. A jury awarded Plaintiffs $11,310,464, despite a finding that Foust had intentionally destroyed electronic evidence. Read More

2005 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey

Aug 15 2005

The 2005 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey Report has been released. The 2005 Survey examines the state of electronic discovery in 2004, through direct interviews and an online surveys of 69 consumers and providers of electronic discovery services, as well as website data from more than 200 organizations in the electronic discovery niche. It also compares this year’s results with results from the preceding two years, and makes projections for 2005 through 2007. For more information about the survey, or to purchase, click here.

Beverly Enterprises Required to Post $20 Million Bond for Failure to Produce Documents

Aug 15 2005

On August 9, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that Beverly Enterprises was ordered by the Arkansas Supreme Court to comply with Judge Phillips’ ruling and post a $20 million bond for failure to produce documents. Judge Phillips reportedly ordered the bond after “becoming frustrated in obtaining documents in a nursing home care case.” He had considered incarceration of Beverly executives in June, following defendants’ failure to produce documents including email and other electronic data.

The story can be found here.

Automatic Purging of 21-day-old Email Risky But Defensible; Failure to Preserve Following Notice of Potential Litigation Results in Sanctions

Aug 10 2005

Broccoli, et al. v. Echostar Communications Corp., et al., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D.Md. 2005)

Dino Broccoli (“Broccoli”) sued Echostar Communications Corp. and Dish Network Corp. (collectively referred to as “Echostar”) and Stacie Andersen (“Andersen”) in connection with employment discrimination. He claims that Andersen, a human resources manager at Echostar, created a hostile work environment via sexual harassment, caused termination of his employment because he rebuffed her advances, and subsequently provided false and defamatory employment references. Broccoli prevailed on claims of breach of contract and violation of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, but not on claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Read More

Motion to Order Third Party Production of Email Denied Absent Meet and Confer

Aug 08 2005

Bullis v. Nichols, 2005 WL 1838634 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 1, 2005)

Alana K. Bullis (“Bullis”) filed a claim which apparently alleges that City of Dupont (“City”) public officials are willing to “chill” her speech via an email campaign. In connection with this claim, Bullis sought email from the City via a subpoena duces tecum, which was issued on June 28, 2005. Read More

The Billion-Dollar Data Storage Error

Aug 02 2005

Maybe Morgan Stanley was careless, or maybe it was unlucky. But if you think your organization is prepared to face a lawsuit, you may want to think again. Click here to read the full story from the July issue of Computerworld.

Rules & Procedures: Extreme Makeover

Aug 01 2005

Law Technology News, EDD Showcase, August 2005
By Helen Bergman Moure

On June 16, 2005, discovery practice took a huge step forward when the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved a set of proposed amendments relating to electronic discovery. The proposed rules and their accompanying “Notes” now face three remaining hurdles: Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges approval; Supreme Court approval; and Congressional review.

Assuming they are not delayed, amended, voided, or deferred during these remaining steps, the amendments will become effective on December 1, 2006. Click here to read the entire article.

The Legal and Strategic Guide to E-Discovery: Best Practices for Corporate Counsel

Jul 29 2005

New York, NY
September 29-30, 2005

This senior level forum will go beyond the basics and will equip corporate counsel, knowledge managers and legal technology experts with the tools required to stay ahead of the E-Discovery game. Up to the minute case studies and presentations by a distinguished conference faculty will provide insight on how to manage the costs of disclosure. Attendees will learn the most advanced approaches for tackling their E-discovery issues, emerging economic models and cutting-edge technology being employed by leading companies and top electronic discovery experts. For more information, click here.

Denial of Expert Examination of Metadata Does Not Warrant New Trial

Jul 27 2005

Wild v. Alster, et al., 377 F.Supp.2d 186 (D.D.C. 2005)

Susan Wild (“Wild”) sued Dr. Tina Alster (“Alster”) for malpractice in connection with laser surgery performed by Alster on Wild’s face. Alster prevailed at trial, and Wild sought a new trial alleging error in jury instructions and prejudice from discovery and evidentiary rulings. One basis for the alleged prejudice was the court’s decision not to allow expert examination of Alster’s computer to determine whether it contained dates indicating when photographs contained therein were taken. Read More