Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Archive for August 28th, 2007

Case Blurb: WESTLB AG, Destruction of unique, relevant evidence

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

[A]nyone who anticipates being a party or is a party to a lawsuit must not destroy unique, relevant evidence that might be useful to an adversary. Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

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

Case Blurb: WESTLB AG, Duty to preserve has limits

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

A party need not preserve every shred of paper, every e-mail or electronic document, nor every backup tape, as this would cripple large corporations who are almost always involved in litigation. Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Back Up Tapes, Case Blurbs, Data Management, Discovery | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Phoenix Four,

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Rule 26(e)(1) requires a party to seasonably amend a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission if the party learns that the response is materially incomplete or incorrect and if the other parties have not already been made aware of the additional or corrective information through the discovery process or in writing. Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Resources Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y 2006).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Discovery, Duty to Disclose, FRCP 26(e), S.D.N.Y | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: Phoenix Four, Unmapped partition considered not reasonably accessible

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

The introduction to the proposed amendments to Rule 26(b)(2) identifies as a difficult-to-access source “legacy data that remains from obsolete systems and is unintelligible on the successor systems.” The information [stored] on a server…which is in a partitioned section of the hard drive and not accessible from Schack’s newly configured computer system fits squarely within this description. Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Resources Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y 2006).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, FRCP 26(b), S.D.N.Y | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: WestLB AG; Back up tapes an inaccessible format; cost shifting a consideration

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

[D]ata that is accessible is stored in a readily usable format that does [not?] need to be restored or otherwise manipulated to be usable. Conversely, data that is inaccessible is not readily useable and must be restored to an accessible state before the data is usable. Backup tapes are considered an inaccessible format, and, thus, shifting the costs of producing data from backup tapes may be considered. Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Zubulake I, 217 F.R.D. at 320).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Back Up Tapes, Case Blurbs, Cost Shifting, S.D.N.Y | Leave a Comment »

Case Blurb: WestLB AG, Scope of Discovery

Posted by rjbiii on August 28, 2007

Parties may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party”, except where, inter alia, “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issue.” Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 26(b)).

Posted in 2nd Circuit, Case Blurbs, FRCP 26(b), Scope of Discovery | Leave a Comment »