Latest Articles
- All Relevant Employee ESI Must Be Disclosed
- Law Firm Sanctioned For Email Spoliation
- Carefully Choose Search Protocol In Litigation
- Court Orders Inspection Of Hard Drive After Delays In ESI Disclosures
- Archiving The Internet – One Snapshot At A Time
- Purposeful Email Deletion Results In Sanctions and Scolding
- Finding ESI Search Efforts Unclear, Court Requires More Discovery
- New Article Explores Metadata
- Suspicious Email Results In Dismissal Of Employee’s Claims
- New Opinion Illustrates How Quickly ESI Issues May Proceed in Court
Editor Bio
Gregg Mayer is a journalist and lawyer with a keen interest in the rapidly evolving world of e-Discovery. Gregg has published numerous articles, including writing for law journals and the American Bar Association. Gregg served as editor-in-chief of the Mississippi Law Journal. Before practicing law, Gregg worked as a newspaper reporter for six years.
Court Recently Ordered Third-Party Company To Disclose ESI
Posted by Gregg Mayer on Monday, March 24th, 2008
As CIOLaw.org recently discussed , courts have the authority to require businesses to retrieve and disclose electronically stored information (“ESI”) even if those businesses are not named in a lawsuit. This occurred in a recent case this year.
Taubman Centers, Inc., a company in Michigan, was on the receiving end of a third-party subpoena recently as part of a lawsuit in Nevada. Taubman was not a named party in the lawsuit.
The subpoena sought 20 categories of ESI going back to 2001. After a preliminary review of the subpoena, Taubman determined it would take three employees working full time for four weeks to retrieve and review all of the 250,000 files at issue. Taubman argued this rendered the subpoena “unduly burdensome.”
The court disagreed, although the judge told the parties to work in good faith to reduce the scope of the subpoena, such as by shortening the time frame or changing key word searches.
Discovery of electronic files…is commonplace in business litigation. The Court believes that the parties should be able to narrow the scope of this subpoena so that it does not generate an overly burdensome amount of documents.
Regardless of the amount, the non-party company still has to bear the costs of disclosing the ESI. The case highlights the importance of companies being ready to retrieve and respond to subpoenas in the most cost-efficient way possible.
Read more about the case here.
Posted in: Electronically Stored Information
Discuss: Add a comment Share: digg | del.icio.us | Technorati
Discuss: Add a comment Share: digg | del.icio.us | Technorati
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.