Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Duty to Preserve Electronic Business Records
For companies in highly regulated industries, lawsuits and government investigations are a cost of doing business. This cost goes well beyond the fees for lawyers, experts and consultants. In the early stages of a lawsuit or investigation, much of it comes from the diversion of personnel from their business responsibilities to complying with requests for information made by an adverse party or the government. Instead of running the business, employees spend their time meeting with lawyers and reviewing historical records.
While there has always been a duty to preserve and produce documents and information relevant to a lawsuit or government investigation, the increased reliance of businesses on electronic communications and documents has altered traditional preservation and production practices. The standards that courts expect businesses to follow were closely examined in two recent decisions by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, whose earlier opinions in the same case addressed novel issues of how the costs of electronic discovery should be allocated. As with those prior decisions, the two recent opinions could contribute to a national standard on a business's obligations with respect to electronic recordkeeping and production during litigation. Although Judge Scheindlin's rulings were made during civil litigation, the same preservation and production standards could well apply in a government investigation.
Background of the Lawsuit
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.