Demonstrating the True Burden of e-Evidence

Approximately 3 years ago in <i>Danis v. USN Communications</i>, Magistrate Judge Schenkier stated: "At some point, a party and/or its attorneys must be held responsible for knowing what documents are discoverable and where to find them." He prefaced this statement by reasoning that we cannot create a loophole in the discovery rules by allowing counsel to argue: "Judge, we just didn't know those tapes existed." <BR/>Case law in the past 3 years, most notably in <i>Zubulake v. UBS Warburg</i>, decision, has expanded a corporate counselor's Danis duty to "know thy e-data." <i>See also Zubulake v. UBS Warburg</i>. Counsel representing today's 21st century companies need to know more than simply where electronic evidence resides; they also have a duty to know if that data is accessible (<i>ie</i>, how easily it can be restored and produced) and how much the whole process is going to cost.

9 minute read December 01, 2003 at 01:53 PM

By

Kristin M. Nimsger