主页
所有资源
Consilio 高阶学院

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

Fill out the form below to download the complete insight.

Comoros
Congo
Congo, the Democratic Republic of the
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Curaçao
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Côte d'Ivoire
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Sign up for Consilio updates

不管怎么样,我们都很友善,祝你好运。在悲惨的情绪中,人们对各种各样的恐惧感情有独钟的感觉。
谢谢!您提交的内容已收到!
单击 “注册” 即表示您确认您同意我们的 隐私政策
哎哟!提交表单时出了点问题。