Parties involved in litigation have an obligation to preserve relevant information in existence at the time the duty to preserve attaches and must preserve relevant information created thereafter. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Developing a comprehensive preservation plan to meet these obligations is both critical and difficult. The analysis of whether particular data needs to be preserved involves murky, and often contradictory, legal standards.
For companies involved in mass tort litigation, the question of whether a reasonable preservation plan includes an obligation to expend millions of dollars to preserve backup tapes is a particularly vexing issue. There is no definitive authority establishing the steps companies in mass tort litigation should undertake to fulfill their preservation obligations. Rather, corporate defendants must look to myriad cases arising out of contexts wholly different from the complex world of mass torts. In fact, the leading cases, Zubulake IV and Zubulake V, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) arise from small employment-discrimination litigation involving at most 10 key participants.
This content has been archived.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]
