A tale of two officers: Uniting CIOs and CLOs for more effective e-discovery
Frequent communication between chief legal officers and chief information officers is essential for effective litigation management, according to Chief Legal Officers Need Better Partnerships with IT, a new survey conducted by media company ALM and analyst firm Gartner.
November 28, 2012 at 04:15 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Frequent communication between chief legal officers and chief information officers is essential for effective litigation management, according to Chief Legal Officers Need Better Partnerships with IT, a new survey conducted by media company ALM and analyst firm Gartner. Survey respondents reported that of all functions of information technology, e-discovery was the aspect that legal departments found most dissatisfactory. The findings stress the importance of unifying CIOs and CLOs, and preparing for e-discovery in order to gain efficiencies when and if a company foresees litigation.
Working together to protect the company
A CLO should regularly assess litigation hold procedures and ensure compliance through the IT infrastructure. Although most companies have legally sound data-retention policies and litigation hold procedures in place, adherence and compliance are constant challenges. A policy that has not been followed may be more harmful than no policy at all.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), the legal and IT departments' responsibilities often intersect in e-discovery:
- Before a company reasonably anticipates litigation it is encouraged to have in place a “routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system” to dispose of records, absent a preservation duty. FRCP 37(e).
- When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, a party must preserve all information relevant to the future litigation. The FRCP 37(e) safe harbor no longer applies.
- Before receiving a discovery request, litigation parties must exchange copies or “description[s] by category and location — of all” relevant ESI in the disclosing party's possession. FRCP 26(a)(1)(A).
- At the meet and confer or pre-discovery conference, parties must talk about the form of production and other e-discovery issues like preservation. FRCP 26(f).
- During discovery, the party producing electronically stored information (ESI) bears the burden of arguing that a production is unduly burdensome, or that a source of ESI is inaccessible, which requires an understanding of where and how the ESI is stored from a technical perspective.
Defining roles
CIOs must understand their critical role in e-discovery, as well as the associated risks. As stated by Gartner, “CIOs should recognize that they are, and are seen to be, valuable strategic partners in the development of corporate legal strategy and policy, and that they contribute to discussions of legal IT issues and to the development of solutions for those issues.” Electronic data is potential evidence in litigation—plain and simple—and the IT department must always treat it as such.
To prevent pitfalls, CLOs should work with CIOs to make them aware of how IT issues such as storing customer information implicate legal obligations, such as compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive, and the consequences of compliance failure. With this essential knowledge in place, legal and IT departments can begin to work together to create or purchase IT solutions to legal problems and inform IT infrastructure with legal strategy.
Abandoning the ad hoc approach
The Gartner survey indicated that 76 percent of CLOs responded that the IT department's support of the legal department is done in an ad hoc fashion. Handling e-discovery only on a reactive, ad hoc basis can increase risk, liability and blame. Thus, there must be a shift away from ad hoc communication between the IT and legal departments to proactive information governance.
E-discovery is a multi-departmental, multidisciplinary endeavor, especially in large or litigious organizations. These organizations are best served by not only CLO–CIO communications, but also by a broader coalition. Ideally, this coalition should consist of experts from the IT and legal departments and litigation support (if it exists), as well as information/records management, human resources, data security and data privacy. Quarterly meetings can provide insights into new technologies and solutions, policies and compliance with existing processes. Once a company is facing imminent litigation, meetings may also involve a trusted law firm and e-discovery provider.
A meeting a month keeps the judiciary away
The Gartner study suggests that CLOs and CIOs should meet at least once a month. Not surprisingly, the survey found that “CLOs who communicate more than once a month with CIOs are much more satisfied with IT support.” Further, the study found that the CLOs who communicated with CIOs more frequently than once a month were nearly twice as likely to change or realign legal strategy or corporate policy as those with less frequent communication.
A joint strategy between the CLO and CIO that blends legal obligations with IT infrastructure is key to effective e-discovery throughout the entire EDRM. Conversely, a failure to ally the law with the realities of information and technology has resulted in some of the biggest sanctions in e-discovery today. The digital house can be brought to order when communicative and forward-looking CLOs and CIOs work together.
Frequent communication between chief legal officers and chief information officers is essential for effective litigation management, according to Chief Legal Officers Need Better Partnerships with IT, a new survey conducted by media company ALM and analyst firm
Working together to protect the company
A CLO should regularly assess litigation hold procedures and ensure compliance through the IT infrastructure. Although most companies have legally sound data-retention policies and litigation hold procedures in place, adherence and compliance are constant challenges. A policy that has not been followed may be more harmful than no policy at all.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), the legal and IT departments' responsibilities often intersect in e-discovery:
- Before a company reasonably anticipates litigation it is encouraged to have in place a “routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system” to dispose of records, absent a preservation duty. FRCP 37(e).
- When a company reasonably anticipates litigation, a party must preserve all information relevant to the future litigation. The FRCP 37(e) safe harbor no longer applies.
- Before receiving a discovery request, litigation parties must exchange copies or “description[s] by category and location — of all” relevant ESI in the disclosing party's possession. FRCP 26(a)(1)(A).
- At the meet and confer or pre-discovery conference, parties must talk about the form of production and other e-discovery issues like preservation. FRCP 26(f).
- During discovery, the party producing electronically stored information (ESI) bears the burden of arguing that a production is unduly burdensome, or that a source of ESI is inaccessible, which requires an understanding of where and how the ESI is stored from a technical perspective.
Defining roles
CIOs must understand their critical role in e-discovery, as well as the associated risks. As stated by
To prevent pitfalls, CLOs should work with CIOs to make them aware of how IT issues such as storing customer information implicate legal obligations, such as compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive, and the consequences of compliance failure. With this essential knowledge in place, legal and IT departments can begin to work together to create or purchase IT solutions to legal problems and inform IT infrastructure with legal strategy.
Abandoning the ad hoc approach
The
E-discovery is a multi-departmental, multidisciplinary endeavor, especially in large or litigious organizations. These organizations are best served by not only CLO–CIO communications, but also by a broader coalition. Ideally, this coalition should consist of experts from the IT and legal departments and litigation support (if it exists), as well as information/records management, human resources, data security and data privacy. Quarterly meetings can provide insights into new technologies and solutions, policies and compliance with existing processes. Once a company is facing imminent litigation, meetings may also involve a trusted law firm and e-discovery provider.
A meeting a month keeps the judiciary away
The
A joint strategy between the CLO and CIO that blends legal obligations with IT infrastructure is key to effective e-discovery throughout the entire EDRM. Conversely, a failure to ally the law with the realities of information and technology has resulted in some of the biggest sanctions in e-discovery today. The digital house can be brought to order when communicative and forward-looking CLOs and CIOs work together.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
In-House Leaders Trying to Contain Political Divisiveness Face Maze of Challenges
5 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250