http://ow.ly/aQryy
An article by Daniel Garrie posted on the infosec island website.
This article discusses the importance of communication within the context of the eDiscovery process.
The article states, "Today, a common vocabulary is certainly emerging making dialog between counsel and technologists both productive and effective. However, equally important is that lawyers engage their client’s technology team in dialog on e-discovery issues, because when counsel fails the fall out can be costly.
Ultimately the ramifications when a communication disconnect arises between legal and technology are penalties that can range from a mild public judicial admonishment to losing a case and incurring significant costs. A textbook example of such a communication breakdown is illustrated in Play Visions (Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. C09-1769 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2011))."
The article goes on to further describe shortcomings committed by plaintiff's counsel, in that they failed to familiarize themselves with their client's document retention policies, and did not participate in the identification of potentially relevant information. In addition, the plaintiff's counsel failed to participate in the identification of custodians of potentially relevant information.
The article describes the resulting sanctions against plaintiff's counsel, "This failure by counsel to communicate with their client’s in-house IT department resulted in the Court granting the Defendants motion for sanctions of $137,168.41 holding the Plaintiff and counsel jointly and severally liable.
Play Visions illustrates what happens when counsel fails to communicate to the client and client’s technology team about the proper management of discovery involving electronic records."
Good post. At Symantec we agree that communication is key in the eDiscovery process; however, since the focus is typically on the role of IT with legal many often neglect to acknowledge the critical role that outside counsel plays -- particularly in complex eDiscovery matters. When this communication breaks down there is often finger pointing and -- in extreme cases – litigation ensues as demonstrated in the recent McDermott case (found here: http://bit.ly/KO5c5p). Ultimately, we have to remember that the client is going to be accountable so antiquated notions about outside counsel ‘insulating’ their clients from significant gaffes is misleading at best. Would like to hear your thoughts to what I’ve outlined above. Best, Dean Gonsowski, Director - Information Management Group, Symantec Corporation
ReplyDelete