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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Giving Back to My Community as a PVLA Volunteer
- 2Civil Reservations: An Important Tool for New Jersey Courts and Criminal Defendants
- 3People in the News—Nov. 18, 2024—Hamburg Rubin, Offit Kurman
- 4How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'Leaders Must Be Good Listeners,' Says Dan Summerlin of Woods Rogers
- 5Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
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