When the Bough Breaks: Spoliation in eDiscovery
-min.avif)
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.
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
