Duty to Preserve – Page 4

Invasion of Privacy and Spoliation on MySpace

August 3, 2009 Josh Gilliland Defamation, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Social Networking, Spoliation

It is true that mass communication is no longer limited to a tiny handful of commercial purveyors and that we live with much greater access to information than the era in which the tort of invasion of privacy developed. A town crier could reach dozens, a handbill hundreds, a newspaper[…]

Spoliation is a “Grimm” Business

July 16, 2009 Josh Gilliland Litigation Hold, Search Terms, Spoliation

Magistrate Judge Grimm is no stranger to watershed opinions…and on occasion the 100 page a law review article disguised as an opinion on the admissibility of electronically stored information. Goodman v. Praxair Servs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58263 (D. Md. July 7, 2009) is Judge Grimm’s recent opinion on litigation holds,[…]

Litigation Holds, Web 2.0 and e-Discovery at the Arkansas Bar Association Meeting

June 15, 2009 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, ESI, Litigation Hold

I presented at the Arkansas Bar Association in Hot Springs on June 12, 2009. I have presented nearly 100 CLE seminars, but this was my first state bar association meeting. It was a privilege to travel to Arkansas to discuss Web 2.0 litigation and current trends in discovery. I look forward[…]

Reckless Abandon: Lost Hard Drives and Sanctions

June 10, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, Imaging Hard Drives, Litigation Hold

In complex commercial litigation today, virtually all discovery involves electronic discovery to some extent. It also is well known that absent affirmative steps to preserve it, at least some electronically stored information (“ESI”) is likely to be lost during the course of litigation through routine business practices or otherwise. These[…]

Prescription for Spoliation: A Short Legal Review

April 22, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Email, Spoliation

Two drug companies in litigation ended up in a legal brawl over spoliation of backup tapes. The Defendants claimed the Plaintiffs either intentionally or recklessly destroyed back up tapes with key email messages that tended to show the Plaintiffs’ drug “escitalopram” did not produce “unexpected results” and therefore was “obvious.”[…]