The duty to preserve ESI is not always cut and dried

By: In: Information Management On: May 20, 2011

The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) describe the duty to preserve potential evidence when litigation can be reasonably anticipated. The term “reasonably anticipated” is a key idea and one that has caused many arguments over the last four-plus years. To make the point that organizations need to be conservative and take this seriously, it makes sense to look at a case that has gone on for several years.

On April 17, 2008, Phillip M. Adams & Associates L.L.C. (Adams) filed a motion for sanctions against ASUSTEK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International for spoliation (destruction) of evidence. Adams claimed that “ASUS has destroyed the source code and documents relating to ASUS’s test programs, as well as other documents that would have conclusively demonstrated ASUS’ piracy.” On March 30, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a decision granting in part Adams’s motion. The magistrate judge found that “the universe of materials we are missing is very large,” and that “we have very little evidence compared to what would be expected.” In this case, the court reaffirmed its earlier holding regarding the trigger for defendants’ duty to preserve, namely that “in late 1999 the entire computer and component manufacturer’s industry was put on notice of a potential for litigation regarding defective floppy disk components (“FDCs”) by the well publicized settlement in a large class action lawsuit against Toshiba.”  In this ongoing case, a litigation hold responsibility was triggered by a settlement years before. The magistrate judge further found that “ASUS’ practices invite the abuse of the rights of others, because the practices tend toward loss of data.” In other words when the case was in process in 2008, the defendants should have applied a litigation hold to specific data back in 1999-2000, eight to nine years before the case showed up in court.

A related recent ruling: Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Windbond Elecs. Corp., 2010 WL 3767318 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2010)

What does this mean for organizations today? Well, it’s difficult to “anticipate” future litigation so be conservative in your litigation hold triggering events meaning if even the slightest possibility exists of litigation based on external events, news stories etc. lock down that potentially responsive ESI as soon as possible. That’s easy to say but difficult to accomplish. The first step as pointed out in this case is to train your staff and employees to be sensitive to these “events” and to not be shy about pointing them out to your corporate legal department. The point is to manage your ESI more effectively. If you have control of your data you have a better chance of reacting to and finding responsive ESI when you need to and securing it.

← Encrypted and hidden files put eDiscovery at Risk Is the popular Dropbox file sharing application a huge eDiscovery risk? →

Leave A Comment


About the author

Bill Tolson

Bill is currently a director of product marketing and evangelism at Iron Mountain. Bill has more than 20 years experience in product marketing and consulting in both storage and archiving solutions markets. Previously, Bill was a principal consultant and practice manager for Contoural Inc. where he led the eDiscovery and compliance consulting business specializing in storage solutions, email archiving, enterprise content management and information lifecycle management. Bill has been a featured speaker at many archiving events including the Government Technology Conferences, AIIM 2009, ARMA, ARMA Canada, LegalTech West and TechTarget’s Email Archiving Series. Bill is the author of two eBooks “the Know IT All’s Guide to eDiscovery” and “The Bartenders Guide to eDiscovery” as well as the book “Email Archiving for Dummies.” Bill has held senior management positions at Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi Data Systems, StorageTek and Iomega.