Employés-propriétaires à 100%

The evolving face of eDiscovery

At Messaging Architects, we’re in a position to see trends in how organizations deal with email. We have thousands of clients representing millions of end users, all of whom rely on email in their day-to-day work life. It’s a pretty good representation of the population as a whole since email has become the primary method of communication for business. One of the biggest and fastest moving trends in the last few years has been the need for organizations to handle eDiscovery.

So what’s eDiscovery? Well, eDiscovery or “Electronic Discovery” is just that – the act of discovery of electronic information. And what qualifies as electronic information? That was pretty much answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2006 when it approved the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments basically outlined that all Electronic Stored Information (ESI) is deemed discoverable and needs to be easily accessible.

There were some big cases before 2006 that highlighted need for electronic discovery, most notably Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. In this landmark case, USB Warburg wound up paying $29.3 million in damages because it could not produce email evidence. A key factor in the decision: The jury was instructed to assume that any email USB discarded after Zubulake filed her complaint would have hurt the bank’s case. The updates to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, were what what really got people to take eDiscovery seriously because Electronic Stored Information is so pervasive.

What’s the largest source of ESI at any company? What is the number-one ESI requested by opposing parties during eDiscovery? Email. Email — the preferred way to communicate in the 21st century — is ESI. More often than not, if your company gets sued or is under investigation, your corporate email needs to be discoverable. As a result, eDiscovery has grown from being a "nice to have" feature to becoming the main driver for organizations looking to deploy an archiving solution. Fast forward a few years from 2006 and eDiscovery has matured; organizations such as EDRM are leading the way in formalizing the eDiscovery process and getting a large group of legal firms and technology vendors together.

Over the course of the next few blogs, I’ll be talking about eDiscovery in a bit more depth. I’ll take a look at how our products can help facilitate eDiscovery, but also why it’s important to understand the policy and legal reasons behind the technology.

Ranjit Sarai


3 Commentaires

Jane (14 juillet 2009)

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. It makes a lot of sense.

Ranjit Sarai (10 juillet 2009)

Great question. Although having a deletion policy enforced can be seen as limiting liability - it does open the door to other questions. Since email is ESI, Rule 37(c) of the FRCP mandates that as soon as there is a possibility of litigation or investigation, the ESI in question must be removed from any deletion policy - this is commonly referred to as litigation hold. There are many cases out there that the court ruled in the opposing parties favor because the defendant was not able to produce the records - often their deletion policy was sighted as the reason. Whether or not the records were deleted rightly or not, the onus is put on the defending party to initiate litigation hold. Implementing litigation hold may not be straight forward if you don't have a policy in place - where do you store it? under what format, for how long? These types of policies can be automated in an archiving solution so that it can be initiated in an instant if required. Another important question is "exactly when do we know that litigation may happen"? This is under debate - it could be a simple as someone getting injured at work.. having all ESI under an archive policy allows you to be forthright and present the data even it means going back in time. Also how do you ensure you are capturing everything? In GW are you using SmartPurge, for Exchange are you Journaling? Once captured, how easy is it to sift through the data? Did you create a whole bunch of PST files for every user under investigation or are you relying on backups and need to load tapes? Is searching through them going to take weeks? Archive was built specifically for these reasons... a consolidated archive with a powerful indexing component like M+Archive has allows you to do instant searches across entire repository.

Jane (09 juillet 2009)

Hi Ranjit, thanks for the post. I'm really glad that my friend told me about these blogs because they are really helpful for the role that I do at the company where I work. But I have a question. At my company, we don't actually archive email (but we're looking into starting to archive email). So if we would be ordered to "discover" our emails, couldn't we just say that we don't keep them? I don't see how the government can make us discover records that don't even exist. Then again, the "powers that be" at my company are saying that we have to start archiving emails for this very reason. Would love to hear your feedback on why we can't just delete our records to avoid the whole discovery issue.

Publier un commentaire

Nouveau visiteur

* Indique les champs obligatoires

 

Bulletin d'information (Afficher l'exemple)

 

Créer mon profil Nous respectons votre confidentialité.

Visiteur déjà inscrit


 

Ce n'est pas vous ? Ce n'est pas vous ?
Si vous possédez déjà un profil, entrez votre adresse électronique correcte. Si vous souhaitez créer un profil, complétez le formulaire "Nouveau visiteur".

Se connecter

Nous joindre

Envoyer  * Indique les champs obligatoires