Electronic Discovery Law

Posted at 2:32 PM on August 21, 2006 by K&L Gates

Party Seeks Preservation Order Where Phase III of Litigation Could Occur in 2009, Citing Concerns re Document Retention Policy

United States v. Magnesium Corp. of Am., 2006 WL 2350155, (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2006)

In this decision, the court considered the government's motion for an order requiring certain defendants "to maintain documents in their possession that are relevant to this case throughout all phases of the litigation." In making the request, the government indicated that it has no reason to believe that the defendants were destroying documents, but also noted that Phase III of the litigation could occur as late as 2009. Since the government did not know whether the defendants had a policy that limits the time that documents are retained, it wanted to ensure that relevant documents were not inadvertently destroyed as part of the defendants' document retention policy.

In response, the defendants stated that "'[w]here no showing has been made of a significant threat that documents will be lost or destroyed absent an immediate order, a document preservation order generally is not appropriate.'" (Citation omitted.) The Defendants contended that the government failed to make that showing. Further, the defendants argued that the scope of the order requested by the government was too broad. Nevertheless, the defendants did not oppose the entry of a preservation order, as long as it applied equally to the government.

In light of the defendants' non-opposition to the entry of a preservation order, the court granted the motion in the form suggested by the defendants, and concluded that it would "enter an order requiring both the United States and the non-USM defendants to preserve all documents in their possession relevant to the claims or defenses of any party until this litigation is completed."

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL

Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end

EDD Dude - August 23, 2006 8:22 AM

Does anyone have a link to the June 14, 2006 opinion in this case? Thanks!

PS, the case is called United States v. Magnesium Corp. of Am. I'm looking for the District Court opinion (10th circ.) June 14, 2006. Thanks!

This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of more than 40 fully integrated offices located in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.

Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

e-Discovery Analysis & Technology group at K&L Gates, offering services related to ediscovery, review of electronic documents, electronic discovery and electronic evidence discovery.
K&L Gates LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
p. 206.623.7580, f. 206.623.7022