Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Creating a Defensible Evidence Preservation/Collection Plan
Most companies have fairly comprehensive document retention/destruction policies for both paper and electronic information. Often, these policies have been crafted to meet a disparate range of state, local, federal and regulatory laws (HIPPA, SEC, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) that impact document retention schedules. For large companies that face regular, complex litigation (ie, “serial litigants”), the greatest challenge is when the company has to suspend these policies in response to litigation. A company's obligation to preserve data does not necessarily begin at the exact moment a complaint is filed. Rather, recent case law, local statutes, and American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines prescribe that a company's obligation to preserve data begins at the time litigation becomes likely.
For example, the infamous Zubulake cases discuss a counsel's preservation obligation:
- “Counsel must oversee compliance with the litigation hold, monitoring the party's efforts to retain and produce the relevant documents.”
- “[I]t is not sufficient to notify all employees of a litigation hold and expect that the party will then retain and produce all relevant information.”
In addition, courts have been establishing local laws around digital evidence, particularly as it relates to a party's duty to “investigate and disclose”:
“Prior to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, counsel shall review with the client the client's information management systems including computer-based and other digital systems, in order to understand how information is stored and how it can be retrieved. To determine what must be disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), counsel shall further review with the client the client's information files, including currently maintained computer files as well as historical, archival, back-up, and legacy computer files ….”
District of New Jersey, Local Rule 26.1(d)(1)
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.