More Bankruptcies Could Mean More Challenges for E-Discovery Counsels
E-discovery lawyers caution that, while the discovery process is similar across any litigation, bankruptcy proceedings require quicker turnarounds and more challenging data handling procedures.
May 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Businesses reeling after multiple international stay-at-home mandates are finding themselves out of options and filing for bankruptcy. The situation has led some law firms to cash in on bankruptcy service, and made many cautiously optimistic that the bankruptcy practice will be in high-demand during the current recession.
If it comes to fruition, a boom in bankruptcy proceedings could impact e-discovery counsel's workload as well. "If you have an uptick in bankruptcies, especially corporate bankruptcies, you will have a correlated uptick in e-discovery expertise," said Shannon Capone Kirk, Ropes & Gray's e-discovery counsel. "I think that's a fair projection to make."
Kirk's projection is based on the growing amount of digital communications that occur across companies. "We have seen in recent years an increase in the volume and nature of electronic discovery in restructuring proceedings," said Christine Payne, a partner at e-discovery boutique Redgrave, which last week announced a restructuring discovery team. "Not every restructuring is going to have discovery but those that do, it moves very fast and the data types are becoming increasingly complex. Parties are more interested in text messages and we have to keep up."
Suffice to say, the demands of collecting and reviewing all electronic data during a bankruptcy proceeding can be challenging.
"You have the accelerated pace for discovery in bankruptcy, [so] you have to have a good knowledge about the efficient technology and efficient workflows" she said. While not all bankruptcies entail a quick turnaround for discovery, "often [there's] a need to resolve the issue as soon as possible so creditors can be paid and resolution can be had," Kirk explained.
E-discovery conducted during a bankruptcy proceeding can also include unique data collection and privacy demands.
During Chapter 7, for example, collecting computers from departing employees should include recovering encryption keys, because once people leave it may be difficult to access data, noted Littler Mendelson shareholder and national e-discovery counsel Paul Weiner.
While Chapter 7 liquidation places a stronger emphasis on collecting data, Payne noted that Chapter 11 restructuring typically entails obtaining C-suite communications and assessing messages. "Restructuring discovery is mostly done by agreements and parties are incentivized to produce comprehensively and quickly. If the merits counsel [is] negotiating on behalf of a debtor and agrees to give officer-level communication, you have to be able to jump on it."
Still while they have their own unique challenges, e-discovery during bankruptcy proceedings also can be similar to other litigation, e-discovery counsel said. After all, understanding the scope, what's is needed and other rules agreed upon by the parties are essential for all discovery matters, including bankruptcy proceedings.
It's only bankruptcies' heightened timeline and unique collection challenges that really make the difference, Weiner explained.
"The fundamental issues that would come up in litigation will also arise in those [bankruptcy] cases but, because of the unique setting of bankruptcy, when things may be winding down, reorganizing or changing, those are when the unique circumstances come in," he said.
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 AllCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Discusses Teaching Tech to Juries
Navigating the SEC's Marketing Rule: Compliance Challenges and Legal Insights
16 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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