Approximately 3 years ago in Danis v. USN Communications, 2000 WL 1694325 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2000), 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.”
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.
By
Kristin M. NimsgerThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- 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 have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
