Comments on: Litigation Hold Is Not Enough: Sanctions Imposed Under Rule 26(g) for Negligent Collection and Preservation http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/litigation-hold-is-not-enough-sanctions-imposed-under-rule-26g-for-negligent-search-and-preservaton/ A Team approach to electronic discovery combining the talents of Law and IT. The views expressed in this blog are my own, and not necessarily those of my law firm or clients. Copyright Ralph Losey 2008. All Rights Reserved. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: e-Discovery Teams: Self-Organization and Development of Evidence Preservation Protocols « e-Discovery Team http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/litigation-hold-is-not-enough-sanctions-imposed-under-rule-26g-for-negligent-search-and-preservaton/#comment-5555 e-Discovery Teams: Self-Organization and Development of Evidence Preservation Protocols « e-Discovery Team Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:36:40 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/litigation-hold-is-not-enough-sanctions-imposed-under-rule-26g-for-negligent-search-and-preservaton/#comment-5555 [...] Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC, 2007 WL 684001 (D.Colo. March 2, 2007) and my prior blog on this case. For this reason as a best practice many companies are now moving to automated systems [...] [...] Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC, 2007 WL 684001 (D.Colo. March 2, 2007) and my prior blog on this case. For this reason as a best practice many companies are now moving to automated systems [...]

]]> By: The Sedona Conference Releases Two New Must-Read Commentaries on “Email Management” and “Legal Holds” « e-Discovery Team http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/litigation-hold-is-not-enough-sanctions-imposed-under-rule-26g-for-negligent-search-and-preservaton/#comment-2460 The Sedona Conference Releases Two New Must-Read Commentaries on “Email Management” and “Legal Holds” « e-Discovery Team Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:24:44 +0000 http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/litigation-hold-is-not-enough-sanctions-imposed-under-rule-26g-for-negligent-search-and-preservaton/#comment-2460 [...] Another controversial aspect of Guideline 8 is its placement of the burden for search and preservation upon the individual employees themselves, instead of on the company, its IT department or automated procedures. This let-the-employees-do-everything procedure has been the norm in the past, but is beginning to be challenged by many courts, especially where there is inadequate follow-up. See Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC, 2007 WL 684001 (D.Colo. March 2, 2007) and my prior blog on the subject Litigation Hold Is Not Enough: Sanctions Imposed Under Rule 26(g) for Negligent Collection and Prese... [...] [...] Another controversial aspect of Guideline 8 is its placement of the burden for search and preservation upon the individual employees themselves, instead of on the company, its IT department or automated procedures. This let-the-employees-do-everything procedure has been the norm in the past, but is beginning to be challenged by many courts, especially where there is inadequate follow-up. See Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC, 2007 WL 684001 (D.Colo. March 2, 2007) and my prior blog on the subject Litigation Hold Is Not Enough: Sanctions Imposed Under Rule 26(g) for Negligent Collection and Prese… [...]

]]>