Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for August 28th, 2007

Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, any destruction once duty to preserve attaches is negligence

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Once the duty to preserve attaches, any destruction of documents is, at a minimum, negligence. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 2006 WL 3050864 (N. D. Cal. 2006) (citing Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. 220).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Preserve, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, N.D. Cal., Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, affirmative nature of duty to preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

The obligation to retain discoverable materials is an affirmative one; it requires that the agency or corp. officers or having notice of discovery obligations communicate those obligations to employees in possession of discoverable materials. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 2006 WL 3050864 (N. D. Cal. 2006) (quoting National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 115 F.R.D. at 557-58).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Preserve, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, N.D. Cal. | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Napster C/R Litigation, Reasonable anticipation means any future litigation must be probable

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

[Any] future litigation must be “probable,” which has been held to mean “more than a possibility.” In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 2006 WL 3050864 (N. D. Cal. 2006) (citing Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2006 WL 565893 at *21 (N.D. Cal. 2006)).

Posted in 9th Circuit, Case Blurbs, Duty to Preserve, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, N.D. Cal., Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Tomar Electronics, obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

A party’s obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry when presented with discovery requests during litigation also triggers an obligation to preserve evidence arises that when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation. 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tomar Electronics, 2006 WL 2670038 (D. Minn. 2006) (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Posted in 8th Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Minn., Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Inquiry, Duty to Preserve, Judge Michael J. Davis | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Debtor’s failure to comply with Agreement triggers duty to Preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Debtor should have anticipated litigation over its failure to comply with an Asset Purchase Agreement, therefore should not have destroyed electronic files relevant to the litigation. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve, Reasonable Anticipation of Litigation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp, selective preservation of documents prohibited

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

A party cannot selectively preserve “relevant documents and only present those that it finds favorable to its case, at a time when if finds it convenient. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., F.3d 879, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Document Retention, Duty to Preserve | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Test for spoliation

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Inquiry is whether the party destroying documents “knew or should have known that the destroyed evidence was relevant to pending, imminent or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 2006 WL 307982 (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., F.3d 1469, 1479 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve, Spoliation | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Quintus Corp., Trigger of Duty to Preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation. In re Quintus Corp. v. Avaya, Inc., 353 B.R. 77, (Bkrtcy. D. Del. 2006) (citing Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001)).

Posted in 3d Circuit, Case Blurbs, D. Del., Duty to Preserve | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: WESTLB AG, de-duplication of relevant documents, scope of duty to preserve

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

[A] party or anticipated party must retain all relevant documents (but not multiple identical copies) in existence at the time the duty to preserve attaches, and any relevant documents created thereafter. In recognition of the fact that there are many ways to manage electronic data, litigants are free to choose how this task is accomplished. Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Zubulake IV, 220 F.R.D. at 218).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Case Blurbs, Data Management, De-Duplication, Duty to Preserve, S.D.N.Y | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb; WestLB AG; Key Players have a duty to preserve relevant documents

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

The scope of the duty [to preserve relevant documents] extends to the “key players” in a litigation. Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Case Blurbs, Data Custodians, Data Sources, Duty to Preserve, Key Players, S.D.N.Y | Leave a Comment »