Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Electronic Discovery Puts General Counsel On Front Lines

By D. Chad McCoy
August 19, 2003

This is part three of a three-part series on technology-related issues of importance to General Counsel.

The increasing pressure to produce electronic data and documents in native formats puts in-house counsel on the front lines during, and even prior to, the electronic discovery phase of litigation. The basic obligations in-house counsel have prior to potential litigation include developing a corporate strategy for electronic data preservation and retrieval, implementing the plan, documenting policies and procedures in writing, and disseminating the policies and procedures to appropriate internal parties. Missteps in any of these areas can and has led to various sanctions ranging from fines to default judgments.

Even with a data preservation program in place, the courts are reluctant to allow companies to hide behind the procedures when it is clear the destruction of evidence was intentional. General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) continued its standard document destruction policy despite the existence of a protective order requiring the retention and preservation of relevant documents. GNC did not instruct its employees to preserve relevant records or make any efforts that the records would be preserved. To make matters worse, GNC's president issued a memo to all employees advising them that the preservation order 'should not require us to change our standard document retention or destruction policies or practices.' The court ruled in Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corporation Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984), that the defendant's destruction of records, both paper and electronic, which it had reason to know were relevant to the case, warranted both monetary sanctions and a default judgment.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?