Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Effective Legal Holds Policy Requires IT-Legal Interaction
The explosive growth in electronic communications has resulted in a corollary growth of e-mail as a primary source of legal discovery when organizations are faced with litigation. As recent high profile cases demonstrate, traditional litigation hold processes are being successfully challenged as inadequate in the context of electronic communications. The lesson, therefore, is that if a company uses technology to run its daily business operations, it will be expected to utilize similar technologies to search, collect and produce requested or subpoenaed business records. Symantec Corporation, a developer of security and availability software tools, is leveraging its own products and the expertise of both its legal and IT departments to develop and implement a litigation hold program designed to significantly reduce the time and money spent to collect and preserve e-mail records. This article summarizes some of the 'lessons learned' by Symantec as we worked with our own technology to develop our legal hold program.
Document Deletion Policies: Proceed At Your Own Risk
Until recently, companies were reasonably safe following policies that called for the deletion of all e-mail records after a short time period, typically 30-90 days. The motivation for doing so was to hold down records storage and management costs, which continue to grow year over year. According to market research firm IDC, this explosion of corporate e-mail represents not only an increase in the number of messages sent and received, but also an increase in the size of e-mail attachments. IDC reports that in 2004, the size of business e-mail volumes sent annually worldwide increased by 47% from 2003, and more than doubled from 2002 levels. See, 'Worldwide E-mail Usage 2004-2008 Forecast: Spam Today, Other Content Tomorrow,' Mark Levitt and Robert P. Mahowald, August 2004.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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?