Successfully reported this slideshow.
Workshop for Developing Litigation Holds John Isaza, Esq.  Howett Isaza Law Group, LLP John Jablonski, Esq. Goldberg Segal...
Learning Objectives <ul><li>Upon completion of this session, participants will be able to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify ...
Seven Steps for Implementing Legal Holds <ul><li>Agenda </li></ul><ul><li>What is a hold policy? </li></ul><ul><li>Spoliat...
What is a hold policy? <ul><li>Sample definition recommended to a client : </li></ul><ul><li>“ Suspends routine destructio...
Part I <ul><li>Spoliation & Recent Court Decisions Shaping Litigation Hold Practices </li></ul>
Part I: The Spoliation of Evidence Doctrine <ul><li>Where  courts have great discretion, at minimum, to impose sanctions f...
Examples of Spoliation Sanctions <ul><li>Evidentiary or legal sanctions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not allowing documents intro...
The Duty to Preserve Continuum <ul><li>Statutory or regulatory obligations to preserve </li></ul><ul><li>Statutes of limit...
Part I. What is Foreseeable Litigation? <ul><li>General Guidelines per Zubulake & Sedona Principles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>...
Part I: Sedona Principle #5 <ul><li>“ The obligation to preserve electronic data and documents requires reasonable and goo...
Part I: Duty to Preserve in General <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 </li></ul><ul><li>“ Identifying th...
Part I: Foreseeable Litigation in General <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 </li></ul><ul><li>“ The obli...
Part II <ul><li>The Seven Steps for Implementing Legal Holds </li></ul>
1. Trigger Event 2. Analyze Duty To Preserve 3.   Define Scope 4. Implement Hold 5. Enforce & Examine 6. Modify NO Impleme...
Step 1: Identify Trigger Events
Filing Claims with Admin Agency <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212 . </li></ul><ul><li>“ In this case, the dut...
Water Cooler Discussions <ul><li>Zubulake IV –   </li></ul><ul><li>“ Merely because one or two employees contemplate the p...
Conversations with Supervisors <ul><li>Broccoli v. EchoStar (D. MD 2005) 229 FRD 506, 516-17  </li></ul><ul><li>Another em...
Broccoli Spoliation Actions <ul><li>“ Under EchoStar's extraordinary email/document retention policy, the email system aut...
Broccoli Spoliation Actions <ul><li>“ The electronic files, including the contents of all folders, sub-folders, and all em...
Broccoli Holding <ul><li>Court granted Broccoli's motion for sanctions and included an adverse spoliation of evidence inst...
Retainer of Counsel & Experts <ul><li>Silvestri v. GM (4 th  Cir. 2001) 271 F.3d 583 –  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Airbag faile...
Silvestri Holding <ul><li>Silvestri fired his attorney and retained new one </li></ul><ul><li>At trial, GM sought spoliati...
Compilation of List of Potential Opponents <ul><li>Rambus v. Infineon  (ED VA 2004) 220 F.R.D. 264 </li></ul><ul><li>Samsu...
Rambus Holdings <ul><li>The court in two of the decisions found spoliation, because duty attached when list of potential o...
Step 2: Analyze Preservation Duty <ul><li>Step Two  analysis is required to determine whether the event has triggered the ...
Preservation Duty Checklist <ul><li>Who determines whether a legal hold is necessary?  </li></ul><ul><li>Collect Facts To ...
Step 3: Define Scope of the Hold <ul><li>Scope to be determined on a case by case analysis… Examples include: </li></ul><u...
<ul><li>Copyright infringement case filed 2/06 </li></ul><ul><li>Held that preservation duty creates obligation to modify ...
<ul><li>If website logging function enabled, then server copies requests of dot-torrent files into a log file </li></ul><u...
<ul><li>RAM qualifies as ESI under Rule 34(a) </li></ul><ul><li>SLD within custody or control of defendants whether in the...
<ul><li>There was no prior precedent for RAM discovery </li></ul><ul><li>There was no specific request or discovery to pre...
Step 4: Implement the Legal Hold <ul><li>Who issues Hold order? </li></ul><ul><li>Who receives Hold order? </li></ul><ul><...
Step 5: Enforce and Examine Effectiveness of the Hold <ul><li>Interview Key Witnesses </li></ul><ul><li>Get Together with ...
Step 6: Modify the Legal Hold <ul><li>Re-check scope of Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Broadening or Narrowing </li></ul><...
Step Seven: Monitor and Remove the Legal Hold <ul><li>Audits </li></ul><ul><li>Record Hold Reminders </li></ul><ul><li>Iss...
Final Big Picture Considerations <ul><li>Legal Hold Oversight Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Education & Training </li></ul><...
Workshop Hypothetical <ul><li>Aerospace Nevada is a company, based out of Reno, Nevada that builds private jets  </li></ul...
Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Well before the lawsuit was filed on July 20, 2008, a low level employee at Belt S é curit é  told ...
Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Complaint was served on September 20, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é  answered the complai...
Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Now that all the parties have appeared in the case, the parties must meet and confer in preparation...
About Aerospace Nevada <ul><li>It has taken steps over the last several years towards becoming paperless </li></ul><ul><li...
Aerospace Nevada Handouts <ul><li>Organization chart </li></ul><ul><li>System architecture/map </li></ul><ul><li>Data sour...
 
 
Data source checklist
Data Source Checklist <ul><li>RM System, which captures email </li></ul><ul><li>ECM System </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Reco...
Proposed key search terms
Proposed Search Terms <ul><li>Belt Securite </li></ul><ul><li>Seatbelts </li></ul><ul><li>Contract </li></ul><ul><li>Maint...
Legal Hold policy
Records Retention Policy
Electronic Records Policy
Records Retention Schedule
List of Backup Tapes
List of Legacy Systems with  recovery cost estimates
About Belt S é curit é   <ul><li>Belt S é curit é  has been running on a shoestring budget, given substantial legal fees i...
Belt S é curit é  Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>...
Belt S é curit é  Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>...
 
List of backup tapes  by date range
List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives
List of employees who  work from home
List of storage facilities
French laws re: privacy <ul><li>In pursuance of the 1970 Hague Convention, any information injunction issued by US judicia...
French laws re: privacy <ul><li>The French Law of 26 July 1968 on the disclosure of documents and information of an econom...
1. Trigger Event 2. Analyze Duty To Preserve 3.   Define Scope 4. Implement Hold 5. Enforce & Examine 6. Modify NO Impleme...
<ul><li>John J. Isaza, Esq. </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>(949) 632-3860 </li></ul><ul><li>19742 Mac...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Legal Hold Workshop - ARMA International - Las Vegas - Oct 23, 2008

1,806 views

Published on

3 hour workshop on Legal Holds, presented at ARMA International\'s annual conference in Las Vegas on October 23, 2008. The program was highly rated by attendees, rated as 3rd out of 85 educational sessions.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Legal Hold Workshop - ARMA International - Las Vegas - Oct 23, 2008

  1. 1. Workshop for Developing Litigation Holds John Isaza, Esq. Howett Isaza Law Group, LLP John Jablonski, Esq. Goldberg Segalla LLP Education Code: TR1-1292
  2. 2. Learning Objectives <ul><li>Upon completion of this session, participants will be able to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify common events that may require an organization to suspend its normal records retention policy and take steps to preserve evidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement a systematic business process to investigate records relevant to the event and identify custodians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan the building blocks needed to implement an effective litigation hold </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Take away practical advice to help their organizations implement legally defensible litigation holds </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Seven Steps for Implementing Legal Holds <ul><li>Agenda </li></ul><ul><li>What is a hold policy? </li></ul><ul><li>Spoliation & Recent Court Decisions Shaping Litigation Hold Practices </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss each of 7-Steps for Implementing Legal Holds </li></ul><ul><li>Agenda Facilitate Workshop based on Hypothetical </li></ul>
  4. 4. What is a hold policy? <ul><li>Sample definition recommended to a client : </li></ul><ul><li>“ Suspends routine destruction of Records and other documents upon a finding that such suspension is necessary under applicable law due to actual or reasonably anticipated litigation or governmental investigation (or audit, for any documents not otherwise appropriately retained under a Tax Audit Record Series). </li></ul><ul><li>To be reasonably anticipated, particular litigation or investigative proceedings related to specific facts and circumstances must be anticipated, and not the mere fact that litigation regarding a particular topic is a general possibility. The Legal Department shall wholly or partially release a Legal Hold and issue instructions to return to routine retention those released Records and other documents immediately after the matter has been wholly or partially resolved.” </li></ul>
  5. 5. Part I <ul><li>Spoliation & Recent Court Decisions Shaping Litigation Hold Practices </li></ul>
  6. 6. Part I: The Spoliation of Evidence Doctrine <ul><li>Where courts have great discretion, at minimum, to impose sanctions for destroying records relevant to pending or potential litigation. </li></ul><ul><li>Some states recognize it as a separate cause of action, while others simply give courts discretion on how to punish the parties involved. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Examples of Spoliation Sanctions <ul><li>Evidentiary or legal sanctions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not allowing documents introduced at trial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Special jury instructions or assumptions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Financial sanctions </li></ul><ul><li>Fines per Statute (e.g., $5 mill per S-Ox) </li></ul><ul><li>Imprisonment per Statute (e.g., 20 yrs per S-Ox) </li></ul><ul><li>New lawsuit in states where available </li></ul><ul><li>Report to State Bar (it is unethical to destroy evidence) </li></ul>
  8. 8. The Duty to Preserve Continuum <ul><li>Statutory or regulatory obligations to preserve </li></ul><ul><li>Statutes of limitations </li></ul><ul><li>Duty arising from potential or threatened litigation or investigation </li></ul><ul><li>Duty created by preservation letter from opposing counsel or agency </li></ul><ul><li>Duty created by service of a complaint and resulting civil discovery statutes, discovery requests or court orders </li></ul><ul><li>Items 3 to 5 should trigger litigation holds. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Part I. What is Foreseeable Litigation? <ul><li>General Guidelines per Zubulake & Sedona Principles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sedona Principle #5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Zubulake IV </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Part I: Sedona Principle #5 <ul><li>“ The obligation to preserve electronic data and documents requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant data.” </li></ul>
  11. 11. Part I: Duty to Preserve in General <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 </li></ul><ul><li>“ Identifying the boundaries of the duty to preserve involves two related inquiries: </li></ul><ul><li>1. When does the duty to preserve attach, and </li></ul><ul><li>2. What evidence must be preserved?” </li></ul><ul><li>Citing Fujitsu v. Fedex (2d Cir. 2001) 247 F.3rd 423. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Part I: Foreseeable Litigation in General <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 </li></ul><ul><li>“ The obligation to preserve evidence thus arises: </li></ul><ul><li>When the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation; or </li></ul><ul><li>When a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.” </li></ul>
  13. 13. Part II <ul><li>The Seven Steps for Implementing Legal Holds </li></ul>
  14. 14. 1. Trigger Event 2. Analyze Duty To Preserve 3. Define Scope 4. Implement Hold 5. Enforce & Examine 6. Modify NO Implementation / Oversight / Training / Audit / Tracking / Legal Hold Releases Preservation Not Required YES 7. Monitor & Remove
  15. 15. Step 1: Identify Trigger Events
  16. 16. Filing Claims with Admin Agency <ul><li>Zubulake IV (SDNY 2003) 220 F.R.D. 212 . </li></ul><ul><li>“ In this case, the duty to preserve evidence arose, at the latest, on August 16, 2001, when Zubulake filed her EEOC charge…But the duty to preserve may have arisen even before the EEOC complaint was filed.” </li></ul>
  17. 17. Water Cooler Discussions <ul><li>Zubulake IV – </li></ul><ul><li>“ Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm-wide duty to preserve. But in this case, it appears that almost everyone associated with Zubulake recognized the possibility that she might sue.” </li></ul>
  18. 18. Conversations with Supervisors <ul><li>Broccoli v. EchoStar (D. MD 2005) 229 FRD 506, 516-17 </li></ul><ul><li>Another employment discrimination case </li></ul><ul><li>Broccoli informed two of his supervisors at EchoStar, both verbally and via email, of the sexually harassing behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Broccoli made numerous complaints to them regarding the inappropriate behavior throughout 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>His supervisors subsequently relayed, verbally and via email, the complaints to their superiors at Echostar </li></ul>
  19. 19. Broccoli Spoliation Actions <ul><li>“ Under EchoStar's extraordinary email/document retention policy, the email system automatically sends all items in a user's &quot;sent items&quot; folder over seven days old to the user's &quot;deleted items&quot; folder, and all items in a user's &quot;deleted items&quot; folder over 14 days old are then automatically purged from the user's &quot;deleted items&quot; folder.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ The user's purged emails are not recorded or stored in any back up files. Thus, when 21-day-old emails are purged, they are forever unretrievable.” </li></ul>
  20. 20. Broccoli Spoliation Actions <ul><li>“ The electronic files, including the contents of all folders, sub-folders, and all email folders, of former employees are also completely deleted 30 days after the employee leaves Echostar.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Under normal circumstances, such a policy may be a risky but arguably defensible business practice undeserving of sanctions.” </li></ul>
  21. 21. Broccoli Holding <ul><li>Court granted Broccoli's motion for sanctions and included an adverse spoliation of evidence instruction in the jury instructions </li></ul><ul><li>“ In short, the evidence of a regular policy at EchoStar of “deep-sixing” nettlesome documents and records (and of management’s efforts to avoid their creation in the first instance) is overwhelming.” </li></ul>
  22. 22. Retainer of Counsel & Experts <ul><li>Silvestri v. GM (4 th Cir. 2001) 271 F.3d 583 – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Airbag failed to deploy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plaintiff failed to give GM notice that vehicle at issue was to be destroyed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>While Silvestri was in hospital, his parents retained an attorney </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorney retained two accident experts “in anticipation of filing a lawsuit” </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Silvestri Holding <ul><li>Silvestri fired his attorney and retained new one </li></ul><ul><li>At trial, GM sought spoliation sanctions </li></ul><ul><li>Court granted sanctions by dismissing the case </li></ul><ul><li>Destruction of the vehicle resulted in extraordinary prejudice to GM (i.e., the inability to defend itself) </li></ul>
  24. 24. Compilation of List of Potential Opponents <ul><li>Rambus v. Infineon (ED VA 2004) 220 F.R.D. 264 </li></ul><ul><li>Samsung v. Rambus (ED VA 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50007 </li></ul><ul><li>Compare with Hynix v. Rambus (N.D. Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30690 (opposite ruling in CA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retention policy 2 years before lawsuits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Held office “Shred Days” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal to make company “battle ready” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Same facts in all three cases </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Rambus Holdings <ul><li>The court in two of the decisions found spoliation, because duty attached when list of potential opponents and potential causes of action were created </li></ul><ul><li>Court viewed “Shred days” as pretext for destroying relevant documents </li></ul><ul><li>Court in California was more forgiving! Court determined that retention policy and “Shred Days” were not adopted in bad faith </li></ul>
  26. 26. Step 2: Analyze Preservation Duty <ul><li>Step Two analysis is required to determine whether the event has triggered the duty to preserve evidence. If so, a legal hold will be required </li></ul>
  27. 27. Preservation Duty Checklist <ul><li>Who determines whether a legal hold is necessary? </li></ul><ul><li>Collect Facts To Make Determination </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Legal analysis </li></ul>
  28. 28. Step 3: Define Scope of the Hold <ul><li>Scope to be determined on a case by case analysis… Examples include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Email </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>System Log Data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Possible Data Locations </li></ul><ul><li>What is reasonable? </li></ul><ul><li>Records and Other ESI Requiring Special Attention </li></ul>
  29. 29. <ul><li>Copyright infringement case filed 2/06 </li></ul><ul><li>Held that preservation duty creates obligation to modify or suspend features or routine operation of electronic systems </li></ul><ul><li>Notified to preserve server log data 5/06 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IP addresses of users of def’s website </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Request for dot-torrent files </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dates and times of requests </li></ul></ul>Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell (2007) Lexis 46364
  30. 30. <ul><li>If website logging function enabled, then server copies requests of dot-torrent files into a log file </li></ul><ul><li>Decision not to enable logging function justified as making site more attractive to users wanting privacy </li></ul><ul><li>Even so, data stored temporarily in RAM for 6 hours </li></ul>Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell (Cont’d.)
  31. 31. <ul><li>RAM qualifies as ESI under Rule 34(a) </li></ul><ul><li>SLD within custody or control of defendants whether in their servers or partner’s </li></ul><ul><li>This finding does not mean all that is temporarily stored in RAM must be preserved </li></ul>Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell (Cont’d.)
  32. 32. <ul><li>There was no prior precedent for RAM discovery </li></ul><ul><li>There was no specific request or discovery to preserve the data at issue </li></ul><ul><li>There was no violation of a preservation order </li></ul><ul><li>Decision recently upheld on appeal </li></ul>Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell (Cont’d.)
  33. 33. Step 4: Implement the Legal Hold <ul><li>Who issues Hold order? </li></ul><ul><li>Who receives Hold order? </li></ul><ul><li>Form of Hold orders (notices & content) </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinating with IT </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Considerations (the Data Map) </li></ul><ul><li>Interview Key Witnesses </li></ul>
  34. 34. Step 5: Enforce and Examine Effectiveness of the Hold <ul><li>Interview Key Witnesses </li></ul><ul><li>Get Together with IT </li></ul><ul><li>Consult with Legal Hold Oversight Committee </li></ul>
  35. 35. Step 6: Modify the Legal Hold <ul><li>Re-check scope of Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Broadening or Narrowing </li></ul><ul><li>Adding Custodians </li></ul><ul><li>Discussions with Potential Litigants </li></ul><ul><li>Court Orders </li></ul><ul><li>Modify Scope of Records </li></ul>
  36. 36. Step Seven: Monitor and Remove the Legal Hold <ul><li>Audits </li></ul><ul><li>Record Hold Reminders </li></ul><ul><li>Issuance to New Employees </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow Over Time </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor Holds and Re-Check </li></ul><ul><li>Management of Terminated Employees </li></ul><ul><li>Releasing Legal Holds </li></ul><ul><li>The Cascading Hold Dilemma </li></ul>
  37. 37. Final Big Picture Considerations <ul><li>Legal Hold Oversight Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Education & Training </li></ul><ul><li>Auditing </li></ul><ul><li>Ongoing Support </li></ul>
  38. 38. Workshop Hypothetical <ul><li>Aerospace Nevada is a company, based out of Reno, Nevada that builds private jets </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é is a seatbelt manufacturing company, based out of Paris, France, with substantial operations in the United States </li></ul><ul><li>In the past few months, Aerospace Nevada learned that Belt S é curit é’s seat belts are defective and do not meet Aerospace Nevada’s specs nor applicable international standards </li></ul><ul><li>Aerospace Nevada has sued Belt S é curit é for breach of contract </li></ul>
  39. 39. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Well before the lawsuit was filed on July 20, 2008, a low level employee at Belt S é curit é told people (his friends) from Aerospace Nevada at an ARMA International conference last year that he thought his company was going to sue their company based on problems with the seatbelts </li></ul><ul><li>One of those friends was a senior management level employee at Aerospace Nevada </li></ul>
  40. 40. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Complaint was served on September 20, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é answered the complaint on October 20, 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>The answer denies all allegations </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é ’s answer includes a cross-complaint against Aerospace Nevada for fraudulent inducement of contract </li></ul><ul><li>Aerospace Nevada did not reveal at contract formation that Aerospace Nevada was contemplating bankruptcy </li></ul><ul><li>Belt S é curit é asserts that Aerospace Nevada is using this lawsuit as an excuse not to pay for Belt S é curit é ’s products </li></ul>
  41. 41. Hypo (cont’d.) <ul><li>Now that all the parties have appeared in the case, the parties must meet and confer in preparation for the Scheduling Conference before the case Magistrate, which is scheduled to take place within the next 30 days </li></ul>
  42. 42. About Aerospace Nevada <ul><li>It has taken steps over the last several years towards becoming paperless </li></ul><ul><li>It has invested in very sophisticated electronic content management systems, and by extension have developed sophisticated policies and procedures to manage the systems and all electronic data </li></ul><ul><li>The company has gone through </li></ul><ul><li>great efforts to image as many </li></ul><ul><li>paper records as possible </li></ul>
  43. 43. Aerospace Nevada Handouts <ul><li>Organization chart </li></ul><ul><li>System architecture/map </li></ul><ul><li>Data source checklist </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed key search terms </li></ul><ul><li>Legal Hold policy </li></ul><ul><li>Records Retention Policy </li></ul><ul><li>List of Backup Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>List of Legacy Systems with </li></ul><ul><li>recovery cost estimates </li></ul>
  44. 46. Data source checklist
  45. 47. Data Source Checklist <ul><li>RM System, which captures email </li></ul><ul><li>ECM System </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery Back-up Tapes </li></ul><ul><li>What else does audience recommend? </li></ul>
  46. 48. Proposed key search terms
  47. 49. Proposed Search Terms <ul><li>Belt Securite </li></ul><ul><li>Seatbelts </li></ul><ul><li>Contract </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>What else does audience recommend? </li></ul>
  48. 50. Legal Hold policy
  49. 51. Records Retention Policy
  50. 52. Electronic Records Policy
  51. 53. Records Retention Schedule
  52. 54. List of Backup Tapes
  53. 55. List of Legacy Systems with recovery cost estimates
  54. 56. About Belt S é curit é <ul><li>Belt S é curit é has been running on a shoestring budget, given substantial legal fees incurred in defending similar breach of contract actions </li></ul><ul><li>Although by its very nature its records are primarily electronic, all data is stored in servers located in France, a country notorious for very strict privacy and electronic record regulations </li></ul><ul><li>There are very little policies and procedures to manage the data </li></ul><ul><li>They also have a substantial amount of paper records, which are stored in France </li></ul>
  55. 57. Belt S é curit é Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives </li></ul><ul><li>List of employees who work from home </li></ul><ul><li>List of storage facilities </li></ul><ul><li>French laws re: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>and electronic records </li></ul>
  56. 58. Belt S é curit é Handouts <ul><li>List of Servers </li></ul><ul><li>List of backup tapes by date range </li></ul><ul><li>List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives </li></ul><ul><li>List of employees who work from home </li></ul><ul><li>List of storage facilities </li></ul><ul><li>French laws re: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>and electronic records </li></ul>
  57. 60. List of backup tapes by date range
  58. 61. List of company issued laptops, PDA’s and thumb drives
  59. 62. List of employees who work from home
  60. 63. List of storage facilities
  61. 64. French laws re: privacy <ul><li>In pursuance of the 1970 Hague Convention, any information injunction issued by US judiciary or administrative authorities, must be subject to a request for international judicial cooperation filed with the relevant department at the Ministry of Justice. After investigation, the request may be either rejected or transferred to the jurisdiction having geographic competence over its enforcement. </li></ul>
  62. 65. French laws re: privacy <ul><li>The French Law of 26 July 1968 on the disclosure of documents and information of an economic nature prohibits, unless otherwise provided under international covenants, any person from requesting or disclosing any documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature likely to be used to compile evidence intended for use in legal or administrative proceedings or arising from them. Hence, such requests from foreign administrative authorities may be legally allowed only if covered under an international agreement or treaty. </li></ul>
  63. 66. 1. Trigger Event 2. Analyze Duty To Preserve 3. Define Scope 4. Implement Hold 5. Enforce & Examine 6. Modify NO Implementation / Oversight / Training / Audit / Tracking / Legal Hold Releases Preservation Not Required YES 7. Monitor & Remove
  64. 67. <ul><li>John J. Isaza, Esq. </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>(949) 632-3860 </li></ul><ul><li>19742 MacArthur Blvd, </li></ul><ul><li>Suite 250 </li></ul><ul><li>Irvine, CA 92612 </li></ul>Workshop for Developing Litigation Holds John Jablonski, Esq. [email_address] (716)566-5469 665 Main Street Suite 400 Buffalo, NY 14203 Please Complete Your Session Evaluation Education Code: TR1-1292

×