RSS Feed
Twitter
A litigation hold is as an affirmative act by an organization to prevent the destruction of documents, including ESI and paper relevant to a lawsuit. Law.com recently published a series of articles that provide an overview of the steps necessary to implement a legally defensible, written litigation hold and are based on the ”Seven Steps for Legal Holds of ESI and Other Documents” (ARMA International 2009) by John Isaza and John Jablonski. The seven steps for legal holds are designed to help organizations…
Archive for the ‘Legal Holds: Basics and Principals’ Category
What is a Legal Hold? The basics
August 6th, 2009 
posselist 
Legal holds and preservation are the hot topic at most of the electronic discovery conferences these days. When faced with anticipated or pending litigation or government investigations, corporations have an obligation to preserve potentially relevant evidence, specifically preventing spoliation or the willful or inadvertent destruction or alteration of relevant documents.
What are the legal requirements associated with preserving documents required for e-discovery? How do these requirements differ from those that would normally take place during the regular course of…
Posted in Legal Holds: Basics and Principals 
Tags: e-discovery, electronic discovery, Fios, Fios Inc., Mary Mack 
No Comments »Applying the Legal Hold: The basics
August 1st, 2009 posselist 
The “legal hold” operates at the intersection of litigation and corporate retention practices, and it has emerged as an almost-obligatory component of a company’s response to notice or reasonable anticipation of litigation. The basis of this obligation is the common law duty against spoliation; that is, the duty to avoid the loss of, destruction of, or failure to preserve information that may be relevant to pending or potential proceedings.
For a white paper from LexisNexis on applying the
…
Moving up a peg: Legal Hold 2.0
August 1st, 2009 posselist 
In the immediate post Zubulake world, lets call it Legal Hold 1.0, courts were content just knowing that a company took the time to issue a formal litigation hold verbally or in writing. Given the newly emerging world of e-discovery courts often asked for better legal hold procedures, but were not cracking the whip yet.
Fast foward to today – post 2006 FRCP e-discovery amendments. The trend is far from tolerance for a lax legal hold business process. The judiciary’s patience with lawyers and litigants…