Archive: March 9, 2007

1
Nunn Authors Document Preservation Chapter for DRI Treatise
2
Court Sets Out Imaging, Recovery and Disclosure Protocols for Imaging of Defendants’ Computer Equipment by Plaintiff’s Computer Forensics Expert

Nunn Authors Document Preservation Chapter for DRI Treatise

K&L Gates partner Todd Nunn, together with DATG & Records Management practice attorneys Ted Webber, Mike Goodfried and Trudy Tessaro, co-authored a chapter on the preservation of electronically stored information in DRI’s recently published treatise, Understanding the New E-Discovery Rules.  This chapter examines the duty to preserve documents and other information, particularly electronically stored information, that is potentially relevant to litigation. It also examines the effect of the recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the preservation of information, and gives practical instruction on methods of meeting the preservation obligation for electronic information. The treatise was published in December 2006 by DRI as part of the DRI Defense Library Series.

A .pdf copy of the chapter is available here.

Court Sets Out Imaging, Recovery and Disclosure Protocols for Imaging of Defendants’ Computer Equipment by Plaintiff’s Computer Forensics Expert

Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, 2007 WL 442387 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2007)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that its former employees improperly used plaintiff’s computers, confidential information and trade secrets to divert business from plaintiff to defendants. In discovery, the parties disputed how and under what circumstances materials on hard drives in defendants’ possession would be produced to plaintiff. Plaintiff sought to use a mirror or digital imaging method, in which a digital image of the hard drives would be created and turned over to a third party forensic computer expert of plaintiff’s choosing, who would then search the image for relevant information. Plaintiff further proposed that, to avoid any disclosure of privileged information, defendants should provide a privilege log to plaintiff’s third party forensic expert, and that the forensics expert would be bound not to disclose any privileged information provided to him. Defendants, on the other hand, proposed that they create digital image of the hard drives in question and search that image using terms that plaintiff provided and defendants agreed upon. Defendants would then produce the results of the search to plaintiff, save any confidential or privileged information. Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.