A handful of judges are playing a major role in shaping the developing case law on e-discovery issues: Judge Shira Scheindlin and Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck in the Southern District of New York; Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm in the District of Maryland; Magistrate Judge John Facciola in the District of Columbia; and Magistrate Judge David Waxse in the District of Kansas. So when one of the members of this unofficial “Supreme Court of e-discovery” issues a decision, it tends to attract attention.
And when that decision is issued by Judge Scheindlin—arguably the chief justice of this unofficial high court—it is certain to attract attention. But add to the mix the subject of the opinion (the level of effort necessary to institute a defensible legal hold and avoid spoliation sanctions) and the subtitle given by Judge Scheindlin (“Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later”) and we have in Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC1 a must-read decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
