Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015

Similar documents
EPO EXAMINERS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 123(2)

Best Practices in Litigation Holds and Document Preservation. Presented by AABANY Litigation Committee

Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It

Best Practices for Preservation of ESI John Rosenthal

TGCI LA. FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones. December Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

ediscovery Demystified

Spoliation: New Law, New Dangers. ABA National Legal Malpractice Conference

The Pension Committee Revisited One Year Later

Zubulake Judge Defines Discovery Duties and Spoliation Negligence Standards. January 29, 2010

June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

A Real Safe Harbor: The Long-Awaited Proposed FRCP Rule 37(e), Its Workings, and Its Guidance for ESI Preservation

PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE 2015 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE In House Counsel Conference

October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

September s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

Sedona Provides Updated, Practical Guidance for Legal Holds

COMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background

Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016

Record Retention Program Overview

Impact of Three Amendments to the Federal Rules related to e-discovery

Exhibit G: June 16, 2014 Document Preservation Letter

The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation

Records & Information Management Best Practices for the 21st Century

The New ESI Sanctions Framework under the Proposed Rule 37(e) Amendments. By Philip Favro

E-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Individuals and organizations have long struggled to efficiently

International Arbitration

The Federal Preemption Battle Has Just Begun

Case 5:15-cv HRL Document 88 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert

Update on 2015 Amendments to the FRCP

7th CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Second Edition, January, 2018

New Amendments to the FRCP. Birmingham Bench and Bar Conference March 2016

December Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit

Jeremy Fitzpatrick

Substantial new amendments to the Federal

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY BASICS. John K. Rubiner and Bonita D. Moore 1. I. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Is Virtually Everything

Preservation, Spoliation, and Adverse Inferences a view from the Southern District of Texas

RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS

LEGAL SUPERHEROES: VOL 2. MAKING YOU A LEGAL SUPERHERO!

Loss Causation: A Significant New Burden

Responding to Government Requests for Information: Lessons Learned from the Indictment of A Former In-House Counsel.

Overview. n Discovery-Related Considerations n Scope of Discovery n Typical Types of Fact Discovery n Expert Discovery

WHAT TO DO TO START PREPARING FOR DISCOVERY

Document Production in Practice: Strategies and Tips from U.S. and Swiss Counsel

Oe Overview Federal Developments New rules for Electronically Stored Information (ESI) effective 12/1/06 ESI rules as applied State Law Developments P

E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements

Litigation Hold Basics

Expert Q&A on Proving Intent for Spoliation Sanctions Under FRCP 37(e)(2): Developing Case Law

Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums

LITIGATION HOLDS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Practices & Checklist

Document Retention and Archival Policy

In , Judge Scheindlin almost single-handedly put e-discovery

Affirmation of Howard Cotton Exhibit 5

Is 'Proportionality' the Most Important Change In The 2015 Rule Amendments?

November by: G. Gabriel Zorogastua

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) Case No. PARTIES

Don t Get Burned: Proper Implementation of the Litigation Hold Process is Your Best SPF (Spoliation Protection Factor)

Sitt Entity Defendants on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to make the necessary showing of

Document Retention and Archival Policy

IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

An Orbit Around Pension Committee

ETHICS TOOLKIT FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL MANAGING LITIGATION APRIL 3, 2014

DOCUMENT RETENTION AND ARCHIVAL POLICY

Affirmation of Howard Cotton Exhibit 1

INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

UNITED STATES [DISTRICT/BANKRUPTCY] COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DIVISION., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. ), ) Judge ) Defendant.

E-Discovery. Help or Hindrance? NEW FEDERAL RULES ON

AS TABLED IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

April 2018 IN THIS ISSUE:

In re Altair Nanotechnologies Shareholder Derivative Litigation CASE NO.: 14-CV TPG-HBP

Issued: March 30, 2017 Responsible Official: General Counsel Responsible Office: Office of Legal Affairs. Policy Statement

Case 4:14-cv SOH Document 30 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 257

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

For IP & Commercial Litigation MCLE Ethics 1/20/16. FRCP New 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones. Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

Case 5:13-cv CAR Document 69 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

Deposition Survival Guide

5/9/2017. Selected Recent Developments in Case Law Document Retention or Document Destruction: You Decide

RECENT SPOLIATION CASES A CASE LAW REVIEW

R in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Document Retention and Archival Policy

April s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery

PRACTICE DIRECTION [ ] DISCLOSURE PILOT FOR THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS

Law & Forensics E-Discovery, Forensics, Cyber Security, and Cyber Warfare TM

Building and enforcing intellectual property value An international guide for the boardroom 11th Edition

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Functional Schedules for North Carolina State Agencies

Issuing and Managing Litigation-Hold Notices

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, Case No. 17-cv-1212 (WMW/TNL)

Legal Ethics of Metadata or Mining for Data About Data

GUIDELINE DISCOVERY AND LEGAL HOLD

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements

Transcription:

Turning Legalese Into Tech Speak: Legal Holds in 2015

Meet the Panelists Moderator Karl Heisler Co-Chair of the Electronic Discovery and Information Governance Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Panelist Ken Reiss Corporate Counsel Litigation Northrop Grumman Panelist Matthew Baker Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice* Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Panelist Benjamin Robbins ediscovery & Information Governance LinkedIn Panelist Lily Chinn Co-Chair of the Electronic Discovery and Information Governance Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP *Candidate for Admission to the California Bar 1

Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: The Path Forward Preservation Obligations Creating a Defensible Legal Hold Program Guidance for Implementing a Legal Hold Program Advice for Executing a Defensible Legal Hold Program Common Failures and Pitfalls War Stories and Practical Tips 2

3 Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: Preservation Obligations

Preservation Obligations What is the duty to preserve? When does the duty to preserve arise? What should be preserved? When and how to involve IT? What steps are required to preserve? When does the duty to preserve end? What are the consequences of failing to preserve? 4

Preservation Obligations: Common Law Obligations Arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated or at the outset of litigation. Factors to consider include: The specificity and source of warnings or concerns; Whether conduct has typically or historically triggered an investigation; Pending Investigations of companies in the same industries; and The commencement of an internal investigation. 5

Preservation Obligations: Common Law Obligations Common triggering events: Demand letters or Cease & Desist letters; Summons/Complaints/Indictments; Subpoenas; Formal investigation letters; Notice that evidence is relevant to litigation; Accidents (gray area); or Complaints (gray area). 6

Preservation Obligations: Amendments to FRCP 16(b) & 26(f) Rule 16(b)(3): Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may: (iii) provide for disclosure, or discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information Rule 26(f)(3): Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the parties views and proposals on: (C) any issues about disclosure, or discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced 7

Preservation Obligations: Amendments to FRCP 26(b) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties relative access to relevant information, the parties resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 8

Preservation Obligations: Amendments to FRCP 37(e) If ESI that should have been preserved... is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced..., the court may: (1) Upon a finding of prejudice..., order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice; or (2) Only upon a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information s use in the litigation; (1) Presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (2) Instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (3) Dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. 9

10 Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: Creating a Legal Hold Program

Creating a Legal Hold Program: Tips for Creating Policies/Programs Developing legal hold policies/programs Best to document all policies and programs; Understand the architecture of the company s systems; Understand the sources of ESI; Draft a data map; Develop policies with business operations in mind; Incorporate regulatory retention requirements; and Draft a legal hold checklist to consistently follow. 11

Creating a Legal Hold Program: Tips for Training Employees Employee training (and re-training): Consider onboard and annual training on document retention and legal hold policies; Include legal obligations in plain language; Include consequences to both the company and the individual to reinforce importance of compliance; Train consistently across all level of employment; and Identify a point of contact for questions or comments. 12

Creating a Legal Hold Program: Tips for Integrating the Policies Develop an associated plan for implementation Buy-in from management and other business units Identify a Legal Event team (e.g., Legal, IT, HR, Counsel, Vendor) Allows for all involved to consistently and cohesively communicate (e.g., Legal understanding IT). Consistency is key for a defensible program 13

Creating a Legal Hold Program: Tips for a Technology-Assisted Program Consider utilizing legal hold software (Internal license, vendor provided, SaaS) Helps facilitate the legal hold process; Enables automated legal hold placement; Tracks recipient and acknowledgment; Tracks complex custodians on multiple legal holds; Most platforms also allow for preservation and collections; and Creates transparency and audit trails. 14

15 Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Scope and Implementation Factors to determine scope: Nature of the issues raised in the matter; Accessibility and probative value of the information; and Relative burdens and costs of the preservation effort. Obligations for implementing a Legal Hold: Oversee and monitor compliance; Counsel must take steps to identify and place on hold all sources of potentially relevant information. 16

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Drafting a Legal Hold Above all, communicate clearly and simply Determine scope of claims and initial recipients Provide advice on likely sources of information, including prospectively created information Include brief custodial questionnaires 17

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Drafting a Legal Hold Incorporate general advice on preservation efforts Stress importance of compliance and potential consequences of non-compliance Point of contact for questions/comments 18

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Custodial Questionnaire Consider use of custodial questionnaires as a standard form that assists with the identification process; Accompanies the Legal Hold; Seeks basic information: Employee identifying information; Identification of company-issued devices/accounts; Common data usage; Identification of hard copy information; and Identification of additional custodians. 19

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Role of Counsel Determine when litigation/investigation is anticipated Employee threats/complaints are greyest area; Look to extent of incident and threat level; and When in doubt, issue a legal hold. Determine initial recipients Avoid company-wide distribution; and Craft list from immediate complaint and surrounding groups. Remain active in dissemination of Legal Hold 20

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Role of Counsel Identifying initial custodians/legal hold recipients: Start with the complaint; Talk with managers and primary parties; Consider third parties within your control; Ask for additional custodians through Custodial Questionnaire; and Look to organizational charts and business groups. 21

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Role of IT Coordinate preservation efforts Immediately suspend routine document retention policies and functions; Track and memorialize all preservation efforts; and Discuss strategies for preserving unique or ephemeral data: Dynamic databases; Wikis/SharePoint sites; Instant/text messages; or BYOD. 22

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Role of IT Coordinate collection efforts Maintain proper chains of custody; Targeted collection v. Full Image Collection; and Prepare for departing employees. Understand architecture of ESI sources Advise counsel on likely sources of ESI 23

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Legal Hold Life Cycle Verify receipt and confirmation of Legal Hold (memorialize tracking efforts) Determine timing interval and scope of reminder notices Update legal hold scope with evolving litigation; Update custodians/recipients; and Reminders not too often, not too seldom Helps to reinforce preservation obligations, including information prospectively created data Encourages custodians to ask questions 24

Guidance for Implementing Legal Holds: Legal Hold Life Cycle Determine release of legal hold Requires legal analysis not a perfunctory exercise; Customary to release holds after the conclusion of the matter, but consider overlapping obligations for certain custodians; Can be released by agreement; and If unsure, weigh the benefit of continued preservation with the burden of carried data (data that may be available for unrelated, future litigation). 25

26 Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: Common Failures in the Process

Common Failures in the Process: Spoliation Spoliation: destruction of evidence or the failure to preserve property for use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. Spoliation can lead to: Monetary penalties; Criminal liability; Jury instruction/claim dismissal; or Loss of cooperation credit/reputational damage. Amended FRCP 37(e) provides instructions to the courts when facing spoliation claims. 27

Common Failures in the Process: Spoliation Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): Attorneys have a duty to effectively communicate a litigation hold that is tailored to the client and the particular lawsuit, so the client will understand exactly what actions to take or forebear, and so that the client will actually take the steps necessary to preserve evidence. The Pension Comm., 685 F.Supp.2d at 462. 28

Common Failures in the Process: Practical Examples Failure to: Update the legal hold throughout the evolution of the matter to include additional issues and custodians; Issue reminder notices; Document the process; Suspend routine document retention policies; Preserve and collect information created after the legal hold notice dissemination; and Preserve and collect ephemeral or unique data. 29

Common Failures in the Process: Practical Consequences for Employees Important to provide an overview of consequence to employees for failing to preserve potentially relevant information: Corporate and individual criminal liability (e.g., obstruction); Corporate and individual civil sanctions; Lost evidence critical to litigation (increased liability exposure); Employee reprimand; or Termination. 30

31 Turning Legalese into Tech Speak: Tips for In-House Counsel

Tips for In-House Counsel: Insulating Company Liability from Rogue Employees Issue legal hold early; Thoroughly interview suspect custodians early; Document all processes; Preserve and collect known problematic employees early; Re-collect, as necessary; and Implement Journaling function, if available (or other similar auto-archiving mechanisms). 32

Tips for In-House Counsel: Corporate and Individual Liability United States v. Mix, 791 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 2015): Former BP drilling engineer was indicted and convicted by a jury for deleting text messages relevant to an investigation despite receiving multiple Company-issued legal holds. Company defensibly executed a legal hold to the individual employee, which is one factor for the individual indictment rather than Company-wide liability exposure 33

Tips for In-House Counsel: Corporate and Individual Liability HM Electronics, Inc. v RF Technologies, Inc., No. 12-cv- 2884, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. Cal. 2015): Defendant s counsel failed to instruct its client to implement a litigation hold because the CEO said: [a]s far as I know, nobody destroys anything within our company. According to the Court, [t]he attorney must learn their client's organizational structure and computer data structure in order to adequately advise the client of the duty and method for preserving evidence. Sanctions imposed for failing to preserve. 34

Tips for In-House Counsel: Commonly Overlooked Sources of ESI BYOD iphones, ipads, personal computers; Instant/Text Messaging; Personal cloud storage (e.g., DropBox, Google Drive, One Drive); Social Media; Wikis/SharePoint Sites; Structured Data; Outsourced information (e.g., third party vendors). 35

Tips for In-House Counsel: Disseminating Legal Holds to Third Parties Obligation to identify, preserve, and collect potentially relevant information, including from third parties (within care, custody, or control) Consider a tailored legal hold notice Third parties may have their own legal hold process Seek affirmation of the preservation obligation or collect the information early 36

37 Questions

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Locations AUSTIN One Congress Plaza 111 Congress Avenue Suite 1000 Austin, TX 78701-4073 +1.512.691.4000 tel +1.512.691.4001 fax HOUSTON 1301 McKinney Street Suite 3000 Houston, TX 77010-3033 +1.713.270.3400 tel +1.713.270.3401 fax LOS ANGELES CENTURY CITY 2029 Century Park East Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 +1.310.788.4400 tel +1.310.788.4471 fax ORANGE COUNTY 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92618-4960 +1.714.966.6819 tel +1.714.966.6821 fax WASHINGTON, DC 2900 K Street NW North Tower - Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118 +1.202.625.3500 tel +1.202.298.7570 fax CHARLOTTE 550 South Tryon Street Suite 2900 Charlotte, NC 28202-4213 +1.704.444.2000 tel +1.704.444.2050 fax IRVING 545 East John Carpenter Freeway Suite 300 Irving, TX 75062-3964 +1.972.587.4100 tel +1.972.587.4109 fax LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN 515 South Flower Street Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2212 +1.213.443.9000 tel +1.213.443.9001 fax SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 1999 Harrison Street Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612-4704 +1.415.293.5800 tel +1.415.293.5801 fax CHICAGO 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661-3693 +1.312.902.5200 tel +1.312.902.1061 fax LONDON Paternoster House 65 St Paul s Churchyard London EC4M 8AB United Kingdom +44.0.20.7776.7620 tel +44.0.20.7776.7621 fax NEW YORK 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-2585 +1.212.940.8800 tel +1.212.940.8776 fax SHANGHAI Suite 4906 Wheelock Square 1717 Nanjing Road West Shanghai 200040 P.R. China +86.21.6039.3222 tel +86.21.6039.3223 fax Katten refers to Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and the affiliated partnership as explained at kattenlaw.com/disclaimer. Attorney advertising. Published as a source of information only. The material contained herein is not to be construed as legal advice or opinion. www.kattenlaw.com