Policy on Routine Records Management and Retention

What Drives Progress in Information Governance (and Why Does It Matter)?

Aug 04 2023

Last month’s Master’s Conference in London included presentations and discussions on issues relevant to electronic discovery, including artificial intelligence and different jurisdictions’ legislative and regulatory responses to that new technology, project management and legal operations issues, document review platforms, cross-border discovery, information governance, and data privacy. During these discussions, participants noted that the factors compelling organizations to improve their information governance and records management practices have changed over time.

e-DAT Practice Group Partner to Attend Upcoming ABA Program and Master’s Conference in Europe on E-Discovery and Data Privacy

Jul 17 2023

Daniel Miller, a partner of the K&L Gates e-Discovery Analysis & Technology (“e-DAT”) Group and the firm’s Pittsburgh office, will attend this week’s ABA Cross-Border Institute in Paris. Daniel will also participate on a panel discussion at next week’s Master’s Conference in London.

425 Business Article – “Collaboration Conundrum: Casual Connectivity Can Create Legal Risks”

Dec 16 2022

Reflecting on the new enterprise collaboration and remote work technologies adopted by many employers, Julie Anne Halter (Partner and e-DAT Practice Group Co-Chair) outlines a number of related legal consideration and risks associated with these technologies in a 425 Business article published this week.

New Data Privacy Considerations Heighten the Need for Attention to Records Management and Information Governance Practices

Oct 21 2022

Information governance and records management are important considerations for all organizations. New data and documents are generated at ever-increasing rates through the normal (and “new normal”) course of business, and these data and documents must be maintained for different periods of time to satisfy their business and legal compliance purposes. With regard to legally-mandated retention requirements, certain business sectors (such as banking institutions, aviation and maritime companies, and businesses operating within the scope of federal Department of Energy regulations) are subject to record retention and reporting obligations that extend beyond those applicable to other types of organizations. Also, there may be insurance, contractual, and other considerations applicable to certain types of records that impact the period of time they should be maintained in the ordinary course of business. Finally, the need to preserve records potentially relevant to known or reasonably anticipated legal proceedings can create additional record preservation burdens on an organization.

America West Bank Members v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2021)

Nov 10 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel after learning through the discovery process that defendants purged or lost emails and documents. Plaintiff sought “discovery on discovery” to discern the identities of individuals whose emails would have been responsive if those emails were still available, the identification of documents or categories of documents no longer available, and an explanation as to why other responsive documents were not produced. The court granted plaintiff’s request but found it “strictly limited to the purged former employee email accounts.” No additional depositions were permitted and plaintiff’s fourteen interrogatories on this topic were “neither reasonable nor proportional” to the limited nature of the discovery needed.

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email and documents

Case Summary

FTC v. Vyera Pharms., LLC (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2021)

Jun 01 2021

Key Insight: Vyera’s company policy was to issue employees iPhones that were backed up through iCloud but one executive, Mithani, whose conduct was central to the government’s antitrust claims, had requested and received a Blackberry as his company phone, which had no systemic back up of text communications. Despite being under an obligation to preserve evidence, the executive confirmed deleting texts on his work and personal mobile phones before and after receiving a hold notice from Vyera, and wiped his work phone upon leaving the company. A forensic expert confirmed no data could be retrieved or restored from the Blackberry. The court concluded Vyera’s conduct constituted spoliation and warranted sanctions as plaintiffs were prejudiced by Vyera’s conduct and the former executive acted intentionally to deprive plaintiffs of discoverable information. The court declined to adopt an adverse inference sanction and instead adopted Vyera’s proposed sanction that it be precluded from calling the former employee to testify in its defense or introducing into evidence documents that he authored.

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Case Summary

Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021)

Feb 04 2021

Key Insight: The Plaintiff in litigation over claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract failed to preserve and destroyed discoverable electronic data, and similarly, failed to prepare for 30(b)(6) depositions. Moreover, there were repeated delays (and time extensions) in Plaintiff responding to Defendant’s discovery requests. In doing so, the Plaintiff repeatedly disobeyed discovery orders issued by the Court.

The litigation settled while discovery was pending. The Defendant moved for sanctions against the Plaintiff for its conduct in discovery, and the Court, pursuant to FRCP 37(b), awarded sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel, jointly and severally. Plaintiff’s former counsel subsequently claimed that it should not be held liable for the sanctions because it was unable to control the conduct of its client in responding to discovery order(s) and requests.

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Trademark Infringement, Contracts, Unfair Competition

Electronic Data Involved: Email, Electronic Files, Hard Drives.

Case Summary

Charlestown Capital Advisors, LLC v. Acero Junction, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020)

Sep 30 2020

Key Insight: Sanctions against Defendants were warranted. Defendants had a duty to preserve relevant ESI at the time of their deletion which occurred a year into the litigation. Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to preserve relevant ESI. Defendants failed to suspend their routine document retention/destruction policy, Defendants’ counsel failed to oversee or play a role in preserving or attempting to reconstruct relevant ESI until 5 months after their deletion, and Defendants’ restoration attempts were inadequate.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Bolding v. Banner Bank (W.D. Wash. 2020)

May 22 2020

Key Insight: The plaintiffs, current and former mortgage/residential loan officers of defendant, filed a motion for spoliation sanctions and entry of default judgment against defendant based on the failure to preserve and intentional destruction of email accounts and calendar data. The court found: (1) the ESI was relevant to the claims in the lawsuit; (2) defendant breached its duties by intentionally destroying ESI after learning that employees had accused defendant of not paying overtime and after being threatened with a lawsuit, and even after the lawsuit was filed and formal requests for production were received, it paid to order the destruction of additional backup tapes; and (3) the evidence is irretrievably lost. The court declined to enter a default judgment, concluding “[t]he availability of less drastic sanctions that have the ability to mitigate the damage caused by defendant’s egregious destruction of evidence is a powerful factor that militates against imposing dispositive sanctions.”

Nature of Case: Wage and Hour Class Action

Electronic Data Involved: Email and calendar accounts

Case Summary

WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang (N.D. Cal., 2020)

Apr 24 2020

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to suspend document retention policy resulted in loss of evidence and court ordered judgment against Defendant. Plaintiff also showed evidence that USB Drives had been inserted into a shared laptop and files deleted. Defendants actions had made it impossible for Plaintiff to prove case.

Nature of Case: Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: USB Drives inserted into company laptop; Email accounts

Keywords: records retention policy, spoliation, sanctions

View Case Opinion

Tag:Policy on Routine Records Management and Retention