ホーム
すべてのリソース
コンシリオ・アドバンスト・ラーニング・インスティテュート

When the Bough Breaks: Spoliation in eDiscovery

Written by Annie Malloy

Updated: Mar 13, 2024

Authors

Matthew Verga, Esq.

Director of Education

About Author

Matthew Verga is an attorney, consultant, and eDiscovery expert proficient at leveraging his legal experience, his technical knowledge, and his communication skills to make complex eDiscovery topics accessible to diverse audiences. A fifteen-year industry veteran, Matthew has worked across every phase of the EDRM and at every level, from the project trenches to enterprise program design. As Director of Education for Consilio, he leverages this background to produce engaging educational content to empower practitioners at all levels with knowledge they can use to improve their projects, their careers, and their organizations.

More from the author

Summary

Enormous volumes and diverse types of ESI may be relevant to a case, and this can make identification and preservation challenging. It is almost inevitable that some ESI will slip through the cracks. When that happens, FRCP 37(e) provides the framework for assessing the loss and its consequences. This provision was added as part of the 2015 amendments, after a “strikingly, perhaps uniquely, comprehensive and vigorous” public comment period. It sought to bring predictability and consistency to a topic that had been plagued by unpredictability and inconsistent standards across jurisdictions.

In this Whitepaper

  • The analysis established by FRCP 37(e)
  • Assorted cases interpreting and applying the rule
  • Key factors for practitioners to remember

Key Insights

  • Best practices considered reasonable steps to preserve
  • Kinds of conduct that have led to findings of intent to deprive
  • Courts’ inherent authority to sanction beyond the rule

Summary

Enormous volumes and diverse types of ESI may be relevant to a case, and this can make identification and preservation challenging. It is almost inevitable that some ESI will slip through the cracks. When that happens, FRCP 37(e) provides the framework for assessing the loss and its consequences. This provision was added as part of the 2015 amendments, after a “strikingly, perhaps uniquely, comprehensive and vigorous” public comment period. It sought to bring predictability and consistency to a topic that had been plagued by unpredictability and inconsistent standards across jurisdictions.

In this Whitepaper

  • The analysis established by FRCP 37(e)
  • Assorted cases interpreting and applying the rule
  • Key factors for practitioners to remember

Key Insights

  • Best practices considered reasonable steps to preserve
  • Kinds of conduct that have led to findings of intent to deprive
  • Courts’ inherent authority to sanction beyond the rule

以下のフォームに記入して、詳細なインサイトをダウンロードしてください。

Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Republic of
Iraq
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Republic of
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Consilioの最新情報にサインアップ

ロレム・イプサム・ドロール・シット・メット、コネクター・ディピッシング・エリット。様々なものを悲惨な要素にぶつけます。
ありがとう!提出物が受理されました!
「サインアップ」をクリックすると、当社に同意したものとみなされます プライバシーポリシー
おっと!フォームの送信中に問題が発生しました。