“Defensible E-Discovery”: What does the phrase really mean?

http://ow.ly/bZ1Lf

An article by Mike Hamilton, J.D. posted on the E-Discovery Beat website.

This article looks at the frequently used phrase, "Defensible E-Discovery", and examines the definition of this phrase.

The article states, "In e-discovery, process disasters are very real as evidenced by recent court rulings in Taydon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc., and 915 Broadway Associates, LLC v. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP. Yet, the rules around having a defensible e-discovery process are still open to wide interpretation. Even so, federal court rulings are creating clearer guidelines for which judges are instructing legal teams on what constitutes an adequate and defensible e-discovery process. United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl Zwart took it upon herself in Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc. to give the defendants a primer on defensibility."

The article discusses the Kiewit case further and provides information regarding steps listed by the court that should be part of a legally defensible process:

1. Suspend routine document destruction policy
2. Put a legal hold in place
3. Legal teams become fully aware of company’s retention policy and data infrastructure
4. Communicate / Interview “key players” to determine how data is stored
5. Monitor legal hold compliance to ensure that all sources of discoverable information are identified and searched
6. Retain all relevant case information
7. Produce all information that is responsive to opposing party’s production requests