The extent of the duty to preserve documents, and the penalties imposed for failure to do so, are issues that have commanded significant attention in recent years from litigants, counsel, and the courts. Despite widespread interest in achieving greater clarity and predictability, judicial efforts to set bright-line rules that inflexibly impose harsh penalties have met resistance from judges and parties who seek a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to enforcing preservation obligations.
The limits of per se rules in this controversial arena are seen in the lack of support received by a 2010 decision by a leading judicial expert on e-discovery in Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Decided by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York, author of the seminal Zubulake opinions and one of the most well-respected jurists in the country on e-discovery matters, the February 2010 decision is subtitled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later.”
This content has been archived.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]
