PDF -Icelandic Immigrants and First Nations People in Canada - Skemman - Evidence Preservation. Warfare. qediscovery. Lessons Learned from AMD v. Intel. By Elizabeth Ozmun, David Herron and James Pearl
Wait Loading...


PDF :1


Like and share and download

Evidence Preservation. Warfare. qediscovery. Lessons Learned from AMD v. Intel. By Elizabeth Ozmun, David Herron and James Pearl

Icelandic Immigrants and First Nations People in Canada - Skemman

Evidence Preservation. Warfare. qediscovery. Lessons Learned from AMD v. Intel. By Elizabeth Ozmun, David Herron and James Pearl 7 Sep 2010 syrup in food for seasoning and they used no salt for preserving food first recorded evidence is from 1623 when Étienne Brulé, who was cruel and deadly lesson of the Kinmount and Muskoka catastrophe Þorvaldsson

Related PDF

Icelandic Immigrants and First Nations People in Canada - Skemman

7 Sep 2010 syrup in food for seasoning and they used no salt for preserving food first recorded evidence is from 1623 when Étienne Brulé, who was cruel and deadly lesson of the Kinmount and Muskoka catastrophe Þorvaldsson finally concluded that taking part in that warfare against the Qediscovering
PDF

ótica da evidenciação voluntária dos elementos do Capital Intelectual nos Relatórios da Administração disponibilizados pelas companhias, utilizando como  Resumo O Capital Intelectual (CI), nos últimos anos, tornou se mais relevante para as organizações É notório que sua evidenciação interfira como nova fonte   Evidenciação do Capital

  1. A Evidenciação do Capital Intelectual por Companhias Abertas
  2. 1 EVIDENCIAÇÃO VOLUNTÁRIA DO CAPITAL INTELECTUAL NAS
  3. um estudo sobre a evidenciação de capital intelectual nos relatórios
  4. 4 Evidenciação do Capital Intelectual pelas Empresas do Setor de
  5. evidenciação de elementos do capital intelectual nos
  6. 1 Evidenciação do Capital Intelectual
  7. EVIDENCIAÇÃO DO CAPITAL INTELECTUAL NOS
  8. evidenciação de investimentos em capital humano nos relatórios da
  9. CAPITAL INTELECTUAL
  10. capital intelectual e rentabilidade das

PDF Condiciones del Contexto para el Emprendimiento Negocios UDDnegocios udd cl files 2011 05 GEM 5 AÑOS completo FINAL pdf PDF 2 principales aportes teóricos sobre emprendimiento Municipiosmunicipios unq edu ar modules MonografiaVersionFinal pdf PDF Emprendimiento e

Evidencias de la utilidad de la melatonina frente al envejecimiento y los procesos neurodegenerativos

Evidencias de la utilidad de la melatonina frente - Viguera Editores

La medicina actual está cambiando drásticamente, en los últimos años, durante exposiciones científicas se escucha con frecuencia la expresión “la evidencia evidencia y la importancia que ha tenido sobre la medicina conductual habilidades para la búsqueda y aplicación de la evidencia en el caso en turno, 

  1. Importancia de la medicina basada en evidencias en
  2. Medicina basada en la evidencia y su importancia en la medicina
  3. Jerarquización de la evidencia
  4. Niveles de evidencia y
  5. Evidencia de la utilidad de la monitorización
  6. MEDICINA BASADA EN EVIDENCIAS
  7. MEDICINA BASADA EN LA EVIDENCIA Dra
  8. que es la evidencia cientifica domingo comas
  9. Evidencias de la utilidad de la melatonina frente
  10. La crisis de la medicina basada en evidencias

Evidências em Otorrinolaringologia. Índice Temático 2014

Diagnóstico y Tratamiento de OTOSCLEROSIS Evidencias y

7 Sep 2007 Medicina Basada en la Evidencia o en Pruebas • Uso consciente, explícito Los resúmenes de la “web temática de la espalda” de la Fundación Kovacs Guías clínicas en Fisterra, fisterra guias2

  1. Cómo localizar la mejor evidencia científica
  2. Revista Portuguesa de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia
  3. Balneoterapia e otorrinolaringologia
  4. Diagnóstico y Tratamiento de OTOSCLEROSIS Evidencias y
  5. actualización en otorrinolaringología pediátrica
  6. Guía de Atención Integral Basada en la Evidencia para Hipoacusia
  7. Otorrinolaringología
  8. Manual Latinoamericano de Guías Basadas en la Evidencia
  9. Guía de Atención Integral Basada en la Evidencia para
  10. Guía de Práctica Clínica GPC Amigdalectomía en Niños Evidencias

Evidencias en el tratamiento con hormona del crecimiento. Nuevas indicaciones

Diagnóstico, Tratamiento y Cuidado de la Salud en niñas y mujeres

4 Feb 2010 Evidencias en el tratamiento con hormona del crecimiento Nuevas indicaciones Emilio García García Unidad de Endocrinología Pediátrica La Hormona de crecimiento (GH) es la hormona de la glándula pituitaria En efecto hay evidencia de que la terapia GH

  1. Evidencias en el tratamiento con hormona del crecimiento
  2. Poblemas Éticos relacionados con la hormona de crecimiento y su
  3. deficiencia de hormona de crecimiento y otras indicaciones
  4. Efectividad y seguridad de la somatropina para el tratamiento
  5. Guía de práctica clínica Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la
  6. Indicaciones actuales para el uso de la hormona de
  7. Tratamiento y Cuidado de la Salud en niñas y mujeres
  8. EVIDENCIAS Y CONTROVERSIAS
  9. Diagnóstico y tratamiento de en el adulto
  10. Estado actual del tratamiento en Climaterio

PDF Evidenzbasierte Leitlinie der Deutschen Diabetes Gesellschaft deutsche diabetes gesellschaft de Leitlinien Evidenzbasierte Leitlinien EBL Alter 2004 pdf PDF S3 Leitlinie Therapie des Typ 1 Diabetes, 2 Auflage Deutsche deutsche

Evidenzbasierte Medizin und systematische Übersichtsarbeiten

Evidenzbasierte Medizin – 2 EbM Kurs Systematische Reviews und

PDF Evidenzbasierte Medizin und systematische Übersichtsarbeiten cochrane de Blumle EbM Cochrane DerMKG Chirurg pdf PDF Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten zu Fragen der Therapie und ebm netzwerk de was ist ebm timmer ebm teil 1

16 Apr 2016 Tabelle 11 Evidenzbewertung Stathopoulos et al 2010 dargestellt Extrahiert werden Studiencharakteristika, Ergebnisse und die Evidenzbericht 2012 zur Diagnostik des fetalen Alkoholsyndroms (FAS) Autoren Tabelle 1 Evidenztabelle

  1. Evidenzbericht für das Update der S3-Leitlinie „Kolorektales
  2. Evidenzbericht zur S3-Leitlinie
  3. Evidenzbericht und Evidenztabellen zu systematischen Reviews
  4. charakteristika wurden definiert und kodiert:
  5. Charakteristika der eingeschlossenen Leitlinien
  6. S3-Brustkrebs-v2012-OL-Evidenzbericht-Prof
  7. Charakteristika der relevanten Evidenzsynthese
  8. In dem Evidenzbericht wurden zwei systematische Reviews
  9. Tabellen und Forest Plots der Meta-Analysen
  10. Charakteristika von Personen mit CWP ohne spezifischen somatischen

handbooks that accompany Eviews, the User's Guide will be the more useful for you It explains all To create a new workfile click File > New > Workfile Create a new workfile with the frequency and start and end date of your data

  1. A Short Introduction to Eviews
  2. EViews 10 Getting Started
  3. EViews 10 Tutorial
  4. EViews 8 User's Guide I
  5. EViews.com
  6. EViews 8 Command and Programming Reference
  7. EViews Illustrated
  8. EViews 8 User's Guide II
  9. EViews 10 Student Version
  10. Chapter 1 Introduction to EViews 6.0
Home back104010411042 104310441045 Next

Warfare.

Lessons Learned from AMD v.

Intel.

By Elizabeth Ozmun,

David Herro...

Description

Intel

Evidence Preservation

Warfare

Ediscovery Lessons Learned from AMD v.

Intel

By Elizabeth Ozmun,

David Herron and James Pearl

Advanced Micro Devices,

(AMD) and Intel Corporation (Intel) are the only major purveyors of x86 microprocessors,

the “brains” of almost every computer in the world.

Intel dwarfs AMD in size and market share in this industry,

on which the productivity of virtually all business relies.

In the early 2000s,

AMD and Intel exchanged repeated allegations and denials about unlawful Intel monopolistic activities.

Then in March 2005,

the Japan Fair Trade Commission ruled that Intel had violated Japan’s antitrust laws.

Four months later in June 2005,

AMD sued Intel in federal court in Delaware,

asserting civil claims under US antitrust laws.

ACC Docket 67 September 2010

case law is now replete with claims of purported preservation failures involving electronic evidence.

It doesn’t take a cynic to suspect that not all of these assertions are tethered to a genuine belief of actual preservation breakdown.

Counsel for some litigants,

will pounce on any perceived or even David Herron is a partner in the Los Angeles office of non-existent preservation deficiencies to O’Melveny & Myers LLP and is chair of the firm’s Electronic run up costs or achieve another undue Discovery and Document litigation advantage.

Retention Practice.

He focuses on ediscoveryrelated litigation and counseling.  Herron can Anyone who has tried to design,

be contacted at [email protected]  implement and monitor an ironclad James Pearl is a partner in the evidence program knows well that Century City office of O’Melveny successfully achieving this goal can be & Myers LLP and a member of the firm’s Business Trial and challenging and expensive.

The risk of Litigation and Antitrust and possible failure is high and potentially Competition Practices.

He focuses on antitrust,

entertainment and general case-altering.

The costs of defending business litigation.

Pearl can be contacted at against charges of evidence [email protected] tion impropriety — that is,

the cost of “discovery into discovery” — can be phenomenal.

Yet the law unquestionably places the burden of compliance squarely on corporate in-house counsel and What you should know about evidence preservation their outside lawyers.

And these tough economic times The evidence preservation,

collection and production have squeezed litigation budgets microscopically thin,

thus challenges posed by AMD v.

Intel were daunting,

even unputting a premium on cost-effective,

defensible evidence precedented.

Both sides grappled with the challenges and preservation measures that won’t break the bank.

Impledespite good-faith efforts by all,

In menting an evidence preservation program correctly from retrospect,

it is hardly surprising that this case the outset of litigation matters more now than ever before.

spawned evidence preservation issues — and claims and We examine some of the evidence preservation issues counter-claims of evidence spoliation — that produced that arose in litigation,

and which corporate counsel may (some might say,

case-within-a-case confront in almost any case.

We don’t pretend to have all 1 litigation of the Brobdingnagian scale.

During it,

But the trail of lessons learned in AMD v.

array of cutting-edge evidence preservation issues took Intel might offer guideposts to the wary and useful practice turns under the bright lights of the ediscovery stage.

Facing points for the in-house ediscovery practitioner.

an evidence spoliation adverse inference jury instruction,

A brief history of AMD v.

Intel on top of billions of dollars of potential antitrust damages,

The red telephone: Those of a certain vintage will the stakes were chillingly high for Intel.

Ultimately,

the recall the Cold War-era “red telephone” that directly tied evidence preservation warfare that erupted was intense,

the White House and the Kremlin and was designed to withering and woefully expensive for both sides.

Every piece of big-case litigation AMD and Intel settled their dispute in November has its red telephone equivalent,

less than five months before trial and just a matter lead trial counsel of the warring factions.

Although it is of weeks before the decision on the AMD’s then-pending almost always email these days,

the litigation red telemotion asserting Intel’s spoliation of evidence,

and on phone is used only sparingly and,

only when Intel’s competing “sanctions” motion.2 The parties ultimately asked to dismiss these motions in recognition of situation-critical.

the enormous scope and size of their document retention In February 2007,

Intel’s outside counsel,

Robert Cooand productions,

the inherent difficulties those undertakper of Gibson,

Dunn & Crutcher,

sent an email to AMD’s ings imposed,

and each side’s good faith effort to remedilead trial lawyer,

Chuck Diamond of O’Melveny & Myers.

ate any losses that might have ensued.

Of course,

AMD v.

Intel had detected non-compliance with evidence preservaIntel was not the first case to confront evidence preservation directives by a then-unknown,

tion issues and will most certainly not be the last.

Indeed,

The problems largely cenWhat followed was massive,

worldwide litigation that took five years to conclude.

No one keeps precise records yet on this topic,

but this case also likely became the largest ediscovery case in US civil litigation history: The equivalent of as many as 400 million pages of electronic documents changed hands,

if printed out and laid end-to-end,

would have stretched around the globe — almost three times

the parties collected terabytes of additional electronic data from every imaginable source in the United States and abroad to assess it for relevance

hundreds of employee-custodians from both companies were placed under long-term litigation holds

scores of contract attorneys spent years parsing through the collected data mass

and the evidentiary gems culled from this review were used in more than 300 depositions consuming more than 2,200 hours.

Elizabeth Ozmun is vice president,

litigation and employment law at Advanced Micro Devices,

Inc.,

where she oversees all worldwide AMD litigation and employment law issues.

Ozmun managed the AMD v.

Intel litigation,

and spearheaded AMD’s internal ediscovery effort and preservation program in that case.

ACC Docket 68 September 2010

The right technology for the wrong market

Innovation in itself is no guarantee of success.

You need a market that’s prepared to accept that innovation.

At Foley Hoag,

we can help you fit your technology to its proper market.

We offer more than clear and sound legal advice.

We offer strategic thinking that helps you realize every advantage.

Driving Business Advantage

Learn more at foleyhoag.com.

Boston | WAsHIngton | EmErgIng EntErprIsE CEntEr | FoLEYHoAg.Com Attorney advertising.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

as Intel would later disclose publicly,

were exacerbated by the fact that Intel had neither disabled the “auto-delete” function on its email servers,

nor implemented from case outset a thoroughly-comprehensive back-up tape retention system as a backstop against email loss.

Days after there was more news: Intel had determined that,

several hundred custodians (more than 375,

as it turned out) had never received litigation hold notices.

The issues were unfolding and dynamic,

and the potential for evidence loss appeared real.

Intel’s remediation plan: Within months,

Intel submitted a court-ordered “remediation plan” that outlined in general terms the apparent scope of data loss and what Intel intended to do about it.

In the plan,

Intel asserted that in the end,

“nothing of any genuine significance will prove to have been lost.” AMD was skeptical.

Intel had in fact preserved a “snapshot” of backup tapes made days after litigation began,

and in November 2005 — five months after the case started — had begun to migrate some custodian email accounts to dedicated servers that were being backed up weekly.

But the combination of Intel’s auto-delete function that purged certain email in as few as 24 hours,

litigation hold notices of questionable comprehensiveness and Intel’s admitted overwriting of some backup tapes,

prompted AMD suspicion of irremediable Intel evidence retention failures.

Intel’s proposed solution was an expensive one.

To its credit,

Intel decided to gather all available backup tapes (essentially,

the initial “snapshot” of its Exchange environment and weeklies of its dedicated email server)

harvest additional data from as many as 1,000 Intel document custodians who were under litigation hold (not all of whom were required by the court’s document production order to actually produce documents)

and create a vast “mush pot” of terabytes of electronic data that would be searched to find documents that a producing custodian should have kept but did not.

This took more than a year to accomplish and,

according to Intel’s public filings,

some $20 million to execute — although the true financial impact was surely much higher.

AMD’s evidence preservation discovery: The court monitored AMD’s discovery into Intel’s preservation failures and,

The first phase was deemed “Remediation Discovery,” and was intended to allow AMD to make a first-blush assessment of Intel’s apparent data loss,

to respond preliminarily to Intel’s out-of-the-box assertion that no evidence of any value had been lost,

and to comment on Intel’s proposed remediation plan.

In response to that plan,

AMD agreed that,

Intel had proposed to remediate its loss by the only reasonable means then available to it.

Still,

AMD asserted then — and later in its evidence spolia

tion motion — that Intel in fact had expunged forever vast (albeit then-unknown) quantities of unique emails material to the litigation.

The second phase of court-sanctioned inquiry was called “Culpability Discovery,” and was intended to allow AMD to plumb Intel’s responsibility,

for its evidence preservation failures.

Intel said that its retention problems were the result of “human error,” the product of in-house counsel’s lapses in oversight and execution caused by the crush of other litigation activities.

This assertion — and the fact that Intel’s in-house counsel helped design and implement Intel’s preservation program — made relevant what in-house counsel did and didn’t do,

This placed the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product at risk.

Over the course of almost two years,

Intel produced documents,

yielded up its in-house counsel and IT personnel for depositions,

and produced its external ediscovery vendors for both off-the-record interviews and video-taped depositions.

Intel strikes back: Even before it filed its own proposed remediation plan,

Intel launched a searching inquiry into AMD’s preservation program.

The preservation discovery that followed was as thorough and invasive as the court would permit.

While the court dismissed some of Intel’s discovery as Intel simply “fishing for errors,” Intel successfully procured extensive AMD disclosures about its preservation program,

numerous “informal” technical interviews with AMD IT staff and ediscovery vendors,

Intel’s preservation counter-attack settled on two central theories: First,

Intel argued that although AMD had implemented company-wide preservation efforts four months before the case was filed,

AMD had “reasonably anticipated litigation” even earlier and,

had not initiated preservation early enough

that select AMD custodians had themselves not saved all potentially relevant email in the time before AMD implemented an automatic email retention solution known as “journaling” in November 2005,

some five months after the case was filed.

Unknown outcomes: In an attempt to resolve each other’s myriad evidence preservation complaints,

both Intel and AMD made “remedial” document productions designed to cure actual or perceived preservation errors.

But when the smoke of the long,

costly and daunting preservation discovery battle cleared,

each filed a motion seeking evidence spoliation sanctions against the other.

No one will ever know,

how these motions would have turned out since the parties settled before the court had a chance to decide them.

But we are left with some important lessons learned about defensible evidence preservation protocols and preservation pitfalls to be avoided.

ACC Docket 70 September 2010

ACC Extras on… Evidence Preservation ACC Docket • Why My Human Document Reviewer Is Better than Your Algorithm (May 2010).

Stop relying on document search technology and temporary agencies and take back control of ediscovery. Not only will this eight-step process reduce your costs,

but as your review team becomes better informed,

your litigation strategy will become more effective too.

www.acc.com/humandocrw_may10 • Effective Managment of Litigation Holds and Ediscovery (May 2009).

Two years after amendments to the FRCP became part of the discovery process,

in-house counsel have adjusted.

Read the answers and applicable best practices to these lingering questions relevant to your company’s legal hold process.

www.acc.com/docket/lithld&edis_may09 • E-Data and Discovery: Protecting Your Company From Avoidable Risk: The Simple Steps That Every Executive Should Know (Jan.

2007).

Lack of understanding about data management systems can stand in the way of improving communication between in-house lawyers and IT,

before and after receipt of document requests.

Prepare your organization and avoid potential pitfalls when you respond to an electronic data request.

www.acc.com/docket/edata&disc_jan07

ACC Alliance • ACC Alliance partner IntraLinks offers corporate legal departments an effective way to manage the exchange and storage of their company’s confidential and sensitive information.

Exclusive discounts are available.

Visit www.acc.com/alliance for more information.

Article • Ediscovery Compliance as Domestic and Foreign Litigation Grows (April 2009).

Mary Mack,

Corporate Technology Counsel for Fios,

Inc.,

discusses the financial crisis,

and impact of litigation on businesses outside the financial

Practical ediscovery considerations Craft defensible litigation hold instructions.

This is not novel advice,

but let’s acknowledge what sometimes happens in practice: When a lawsuit is filed or anticipated,

in-house counsel typically dusts off a litigation hold template or precedent,

makes a few changes to fit the new case (or simply instructs custodians to “save everything”),

and delivers hold instructions to the usual suspects.

Time is of the essence,

so all of this is done quickly,

sector –– focusing on investigation and electronic discovery.

www.acc.com/edisc-compl&lit_apr09

Quick References • Electronic Discovery Action Plan (March 2007).

An electronic discovery action plan should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and tailored for individual clients’ needs,

but the following general guidelines can be applied in nearly any situation.

www.acc.com/quickref/ed-actionpln_mar07 • Top Ten Tips for Corporate Counsel In Dealing with the New FRCP on Ediscovery (Nov.

2006).

In December 2006,

the amendments to the FRCP forced deep changes in how corporations approach litigation.

They require more discussions and planning for the preservation,

collection and production of electronic evidence much earlier during litigation.

www.acc.com/quickref/10tips-frcp_nov06 • Electronic Discovery: Hype,

Sleeping Monster,

2006).

This material includes steps for how to control the collection,

review and production of information during electronic discovery,

to preserve client confidences and not waive privileged information.

www.acc.com/quickref/edis-hype_sep06 • Ten Tips on Handling Electronic Discovery (Oct.

2003).

Review the 10 dos and don’ts of ediscovery.

www.acc.com/quickref/10edtips_oct03 • Discovery in the Digital Age (Jan.

2007).

View this guide addressing the evolving legal duties of in-house counsel regarding discovery and computers. It includes overview of the duty to preserve,

and admissibility and authentication.

www.acc.com/quickrefer/disc_digitalage_jan07 ACC has more material on this subject on our website.

Visit www.acc.com,

where you can browse our resources by practice area or use our search to find documents by keyword.

of analysis about how now might be different than before.

The result is that you may direct people to save too much or too little

the “usual suspects” may not be everyone who reasonably should be placed under litigation hold.

Further,

the spam delivery of instructions that are either unintelligible,

too legalistic or too much trouble to adhere to,

Treat hold instructions with the reverence they deserve.

First,

you must make intelligent effort to assess the claims

ACC Docket 71 September 2010

This is a special paid advertisement sponsored by Fios,

Proportionality: WHY WAIT

..............................................................................

stake and the relative importance of elecdvocates for corporate legal MARY MACK,

tronic evidence in arriving at a resolution.

departments have proposed Technology Counsel Fios,

Proportionality has often been forgotten changes to the rules governing [email protected] in the past

it now appears that civil procedure.

there is an existing the judiciary is undergoing an important and overlooked approach to reduce eleccultural shift.

Before,

judges may have been waiting for tronic discovery costs available now.

properly formed motions to invoke the proportionality It is well-documented that e-discovery consumes requirement in considering broad discovery requests.

increasing percentages of overall civil litigation costs.

That is no longer the case,

as Federal District Court Judge Judges and legal professionals are exploring various Lee Rosenthal demonstrated in Rimkus,

where she makes initiatives to address the problem,

and several recent explicit reference to the rule and cites proportionality as conferences and rulings have taken up the theme of the decisive factor in determining what is “acceptable” proportionality.

Proportionality shifts attention from the and “reasonable” in “preservation and discovery conduct.” general problem of high-volume,

prohibitively expensive Judge Waxse,

author of several ground-breaking productions to a more focused analysis of whether decisions in e-discovery disputes,

was surprised when discovery costs are proportionate to the value and the he recently re-read the rule and realized it set forth an importance of the case in question.

The American explicit requirement—“the court must”—rather than a College of Trial Lawyers Task Force on Discovery mere recommendation.

Waxse now refers to the propordeclared that,

“Proportionality should be the most tionality provision in the Federal Rules as,

“…probably important principle applied to all discovery.” 1 Federal Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii),

the existing procedural rule that the most underused,

valuable rule we have…Judges on addresses proportionality,

is remarkably lucid and robust: their own are supposed to consider this…We don’t need to change the rule

we need to start using the rule.” 2 On motion or on its own,

the court must limit the frequency or What does this mean for corporate legal departments

? extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by The new emphasis on proportionality has a number of local rule if it determines that…the burden or expense of the practical implications for e-discovery.

Both the number proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

considering and the scope of discovery requests are likely to be the needs of the case,

the parties’ subject to more limits and to closer judicial scrutiny,

the importance of the issues at stake in the action,

Adversarial conduct in the and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

discovery process will be increasingly discouraged,

as will the wielding of far-reaching requests as a blunt-force Considerable attention has been paid to the many weapon to compel early settlement.

Broad,

boilerplate factors contributing to the growing “burden or expense” of requests and universal checklists will no longer pass e-discovery,

yet it is striking in retrospect how quiet the muster.

Instead,

meaningful cooperation between counjudiciary has been,

about the concept of proportionality as it is appears in the Federal Rules.

The rule sel will be paramount

and litigants will need to produce accurate,

court-consumable unambiguously states the court must balance the scope documentation as the best means to demonstrate the of proposed discovery against case-specific variables appropriate level of proportionality.

such as the amount of damages and fees in question,

In effect,

both parties to a case involving large volumes the risks to the parties,

the magnitude of the legal issues at

This is a special paid advertisement sponsored by Fios,

“Proportionality… probably the most underused,

valuable rule we have.” — Federal Magistrate Judge David Waxse ...........................................

of electronic data will need to undertake a detailed costbenefit analysis early in the litigation process.

Parties should specify the anticipated impact of proposed discovery (in terms of factors like cost,

risk and disruption of day-to-day business),

and then be prepared to weigh these burdens against the overall value of the case,

the significance of its core legal issues and the anticipated benefits of the requested evidence for its resolution.

Another likely outcome of evoking the proportionality rule is that litigants will be urged to focus initial discovery efforts on the data that appears to be most relevant to

the issues and least burdensome to produce.

Phased productions,

in which the scope of each successive effort is narrower and more closely targeted to the key legal issues of the case,

Defensible data sampling and search techniques using tools designed specifically for e-discovery will become increasingly important.

E-discovery partners,

understand these cost drivers intimately.

And a quality vendor won’t hesitate to apply the most precise methods and technologies available to assist in projecting early on what scope of inquiry is reasonable and is proportional to the value of the case.

(See case study sidebar.) So the next time the plaintiff attempts to force early settlement with a broad discovery request,

use proportionality and a trusted e-discovery partner to ensure rationality prevails.

Case Study A large corporation discovered one of its executives did something unethical and potentially illegal.

The executive was dismissed

The company was sued in U.S.

District Court by a customer in connection with the dismissed executive’s actions in the handling of a product line.

The plaintiff requested that the defendants produce electronic evidence related to all similar matters involving related products at the company.

Defendant’s counsel,

countered that producing evidence relating to multiple similar product incidents was disproportionate to the value of the case,

which concerned a single customer and a single product line.

To explore more resources,

including Fios’ proportionality webcast with Judge Waxse,

or to set up a meeting with Mary Mack,

visit www.fiosinc.com/ACC2010.

Fios,

handling e-discovery processing,

hosted review and productions for the defendant,

sampled a subset of the data directly related to the plaintiff’s complaint.

Means,

medians and averages pertaining to data volumes were used to project volumes—and costs—associated with expanding discovery to additional matters.

Fios also generated culling reports,

showing drastic reduction in responsiveness when evidence was collected from other custodians.

Finally,

a random sample of non-hits from the culling process revealed no relevant data was omitted.

All information was included in a formal declaration presented to the court by counsel to demonstrate that requested discovery was disproportionate to the case.

Fios’ e-discovery experts can help.

Contact us at: 877.700.3467

in order to identify with reasonable particularity the documents to be retained.

Define too broadly,

and you buy yourself a real expense when you later have to collect and review a mass of documents irrelevant to any issue

and the other side will squawk — you may also deprive yourself of evidence needed for your company’s case.

This isn’t always simple,

but it deserves due attention at the busy advent of litigation.

Second,

you should draft litigation hold instructions in normal-person language.

Sure,

but your employees aren’t lawyers and legalese is easily misunderstood,

Third,

for attention-grabbing reasons,

consider having hold instructions delivered by a high-ranking or well-respected member of management,

since they are more likely to procure

If in doubt,

if you truly believe your custodian’s assertions of good faith compliance and doubts can reasonably be resolved against disclosure,

custodian attention and compliance.

Fourth,

avoid the urge to shy away from potential preservation challenges

highlight them and offer useful help.

the company has — as Intel did — a fully-operating autodelete function that it doesn’t intend to disable,

experience teaches that it is best to specifically tell employees about it and instruct them on how they should deal with it.

Likewise,

consider providing custodians the name of a lawyer and an IT professional who have been pre-designated to provide “white glove” preservation assistance when necessary and appropriate.

Finally and importantly,

draft your litigation hold notice expecting that it will be disclosed.

Cases are mixed on whether these communications are privileged or attorney work product.

In AMD v.

Intel,

the parties exchanged litigation hold instructions with the agreement that doing so would not constitute a broader waiver of work product or privilege.

Both sides realized that preserving a privilege claim for a widely-distributed document,

of which is increasingly viewed as non-confidential — or not even as legal advice — is tough.

It’s especially difficult if your judge views it as containing simply “facts” about preservation efforts that the other side deserves to know.

In fact,

counsel may wish to disclose these notices in order to demonstrate preservation compliance.

Commit to preservation program design and implementation.

A lot of attention-grabbing tasks rear up when litigation does,

and some in-house counsel (since they are human) tend to handle the familiar before dealing with the new and difficult — like those annoying evidence preservation issues.

Who can blame them

? Learning the scope and nuances of the company’s often-complex IT infrastructure and what data is stored where and by what means can be daunting to the uninitiated.

Yet successful preservation programs are those that are initiated promptly,

designed with the input of experienced professionals and implemented with care.

This need not be unduly overwhelming.

Company IT professionals are a vital resource,

and designating at least one as the legal department liaison to assist in preservation program design and implementation can be helpful.

You will have to learn their language (a sometimes tall task) and cannot permit unintelligible IT-speak to be uttered without cross-examination.

Ediscovery vendors can also help.

Many have deep experience and while their technical advice is not a sufficient surrogate for the legal advice you must give,

A warning: Ediscovery vendors and consultants come in all shapes and sizes,

and some sell elixir of questionable curative quality

professed expertise unaccompanied by real-world experience will get you nothing but a bill to pay.

As