Posts Tagged ‘info_management’
hide story details [-]
- August 31st
-
Improving legal records management: harness the DNA of data – CPA Global
CPA GlobalImproving legal records management: harness the DNA of data
CPA Global
Yet, according to Texas-based trial lawyer and e-discovery expert, Craig Ball, few legal departments are addressing this reality. He says that, despite the …posted at 1:42pm on Aug 31st
- August 30th
-
Digital Reef to Host Legal Experts Webinar on Best Practices for Social Media and eDiscovery
BOXBOROUGH, MA–(Marketwire – 08/30/10) – Digital Reef, a leading software provider of the first massively scalable and open solutions for eDiscovery and digital information governance, will be hosting a webinar exploring best practices for managing new social media information sources in preparation for mandated eDiscovery requests. The webinar is the first installment of the company’s series …
posted at 2:01pm on Aug 30th
- August 25th
-
Is ‘Private’ Data on Social Networks Discoverable?
Calif. federal court ruling holds that messages and comments on social networks visible to a restricted set of users are protected
On May 26, a federal court issued an opinion in a discovery dispute that applies outmoded federal electronic privacy laws from the 1980s to Facebook and MySpace. The ruling could permanently change the way “social networking” sites are viewed by businesses and those involved in litigation. The decision also appears to offer the first in-depth analysis on the effect of “privacy settings” found on many social networking sites and whether information is protected from discovery by federal privacy laws.
The U.S. district court’s decision partially reversed and partially vacated a magistrate judge’s order declining to quash subpoenas for certain materials held by a third party in a copyright infringement case. See Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010). The decision appears to be the first to apply the Stored Communications Act, enacted in 1986, to content on today’s social networking sites. See 18 U.S.C. 2701-11. The plaintiff, an artist named Buckley Crispin, claimed that the defendants, Christian Audigier Inc. and its sublicensees, used his artwork in violation of their oral agreement. The defendants sought information from MySpace and Facebook, including Crispin’s subscriber information and all communications by Crispin referring to any of the defendants. A federal magistrate declined to quash certain of the defendants’ subpoenas, rejecting among other arguments that the information they sought was protected by the SCA.
The district court’s decision offered answers to two key questions. First, the holding explains that the SCA’s protections reach at least some of the content hosted on social networking sites and that such content will be precluded from discovery from those sites. Second, the decision suggests that privacy settings matter. The private messaging features of social networking sites were protected because the court considered them to be as private as e-mail. Moreover, the court found that the SCA’s protections applied to wall postings and comments only to the extent that those communications were not available to the general public.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
——————————————
Source: law.com
By: Alan Klein, John M. Lyons and Andrew R. Sperlposted at 10:49am on Aug 25th
- August 24th
-
Compliance Officer Found Liable for Failing to Preserve Data
A recent ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) should serve as a yet another reminder of the importance of adequately preserving electronically stored data.
On July 2, 2010, the SEC ruled that vFinance Investments Inc., a Florida based bro
ker dealer, violated securities laws by failing to preserve and produce electronic communications requested by the SEC as required by Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re vFinance Investments Inc., SEC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-12918, 7/2/10.In addition, as another example of the growing trend of blaming corporate executives for e-discovery failures, the SEC held that the firm’s former chief compliance officer, Richard Campanella, was liable for willfully aiding and abetting vFinance’s violations. The SEC sustained an administrative law judge’s decision censuring the Campanella and assessing penalties of $100,000 and $30,000 against the firm and Campanella, respectively. The SEC also barred Campanella from the industry for two years.
The penalties stemmed from vFinance’s failure to preserve and produce electronic communications of a branch manager at one of the firm’s offices. In July of 2005, the Enforcement Division of the SEC contacted Campanella to alert him regarding a forthcoming document request regarding Lexington Resources, Inc. – the branch manager acted as a market maker for its stock. Although it was obvious to Campanella that the branch manager would not produce the requested documents, he waited almost six months after the division’s request to threaten to fire the branch manager for not doing so. In spite of the manager’s noncompliance, Campanella never followed through on the termination threat, giving the branch manager time to destroy the documents sought by the Enforcement Division. In addition, while Campanella was aware that the branch manager was sending and receiving email relating to Lexington Resources from a personal email account, he never implemented a system to preserve such email. Because Campanella failed to act when he had a duty to do so, the SEC found him liable for aiding and abetting vFinance’s violations.
Campanella was found liable for aiding and abetting vFinance’s violations even though he did not have actual knowledge that his failure to act constituted a violation. At oral argument before the SEC, Campanella’s counsel argued that in order to ensure certainty in the law, the standard for aiding and abetting in SEC administrative actions should be the same as in federal district courts, where actual knowledge is required. The SEC disagreed, holding that “recklessness is sufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability, and here we find Campanella’s conduct was variously knowing and extremely reckless.”
There are two important implications here: (1) corporate executives are not immune from e-discovery sanctions by virtue of being a few corporate steps removed from the process; and (2) the standard for liability in SEC actions is lower than in district courts — recklessness rather than actual knowledge.
posted at 2:09pm on Aug 24th
- August 23rd
-
Social media poses risks to businesses – Daily Journal of Commerce
Daily Journal of CommerceSocial media poses risks to businesses
Daily Journal of Commerce
While two-thirds of businesses worry about e-discovery risks posed by data contained within social networks, 25 percent say they are not prepared to address …
and more »posted at 9:40pm on Aug 23rd
-
Who has Legal Jurisdiction in the Cloud?
Summary
Agreements can be made concerning the jurisdiction over disputes concerning the data. However, disputes involving other entities not parties to that agreement may not be subject to the agreement. Accordingly, cloud computing presents uncertainty and has the potential for future disputes concerning jurisdiction.
Analysis
Cloud computing is a general term for the delivery of hosting and other services over the Internet. Instead of storing data in-house, the data and data applications are stored remotely, with access provided via the Internet (or the “cloud ). Some of the larger companies operating in the “cloud” marketplace include: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Amazon, Cisco, and Hewlett-Packard to name a few. See http://cloudcomputing.sys-con.com/node/770174 (last visited, 8/18/2010). A key issue often overlooked by companies evaluating the value of the “cloud” is Jurisdiction, which is a key legal construct. A court can only hear a matter if it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the action, while law enforcement agencies can only exercise their powers within their authorized jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction over the parties is called “personal jurisdiction” and can generally be obtained over a party who resides within the court’s geographic authority or has entered into “minimum contacts” with a person or company located in the jurisdiction. Generally, a company that does business in a particular geographic area will be subject to jurisdiction in that area. Personal jurisdiction can also be obtained by consent, which is commonly done through a contract provision stating that the parties agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of a specific court. In order to take jurisdiction, the federal courts require that all parties to the action be citizens of different states, expect for certain types of cases that are exclusive to the federal courts.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is referred to as “subject matter jurisdiction.” This can be based upon a minimum or maximum dollar amount in dispute, or upon the type of dispute. Subject matter jurisdiction can also impact the types of remedies a court can fashion, such as equitable remedies.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
——————————————
Source: glgroup.com
By: GLG Expert Contributorposted at 5:45pm on Aug 23rd
-
Workshare Announces Beta Program for Document and Email Management Solution for SharePoint 2010
Solution allows legal professionals to manage their matter-related documents and email from within Microsoft Office and OutlookWorkshare, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner and leading provider of document collaboration software, today announced the beta program for a new document and email management solution that extends the enterprise content management capabilities of Microsoft SharePoint 2010. Workshare will unveil the new solution at the International Legal Technology Association conference on August 23rd in Las Vegas.
posted at 9:37am on Aug 23rd
- August 20th
-
Information Management and Ediscovery
Last time, we discussed some trends in the ediscovery market. One trend we’re seeing within organizations is an increased focus on information management. This information management focus comes from a perfect storm of problems that companies are facing right now. Regulatory compliance is at the forefront of most technology-related decisions, but other factors play a [...]
Related posts:
posted at 10:53am on Aug 20th
-
Collaboration in the Cloud: an EDD Look at SharePoint – Legal Talk Network (blog)
Collaboration in the Cloud: an EDD Look at SharePoint
Legal Talk Network (blog)
On this edition of Litigation Support Reivew, host Mary Pat Poteet, an eDiscovery/Litigation Support expert with almost 20 years experience, welcomes Larry …posted at 10:05am on Aug 20th
-
‘Web 2.0′ as Evidence
In a recent intellectual property case for which we were retained, among the electronically stored information (ESI) that the plaintiff sought for production were internal company blogs and wikis used by the defendant’s developers to discuss new product ideas, as well as the design and coding of the alleged offending application. Included in the discovery were sites created using Microsoft® SharePoint® and MediaWiki software (and others). The discovery order was crafted with the typical “readily accessible” and “native format” language that seems totally irrelevant to sites which maintain dynamic content.
Due to the nature of the business, none of the sites for which production was requested was required to be managed in accordance with standards for business compliance such as Sarbanes-Oxley or the European Union Data Protection Directive. All were informal sites created by the development team to support collaboration with other team members. It is arguable whether there was any affirmative “duty to preserve” since it appeared that the developers were totally unaware of any intellectual property concerns related to their work.Thus, the issues that arose during production were two-fold: What constituted “readily accessible” in sites in which the content is frequently changing and for which point-in-time recovery (PiTR) solutions do not exist? The producing party’s view was that snapshots of the current site with resolution and recursion on internal links to one level of depth was sufficient, but how to produce those snapshots in a form which was reasonably complete but did not constitute a hardship for the producing party? Initial attempts using various web crawlers were abandoned after the output far exceeded the volume of space actually occupied by the site itself! And given that the site content is, at least in part, database driven, what is the impact of continued site use, after the alleged point of infringement, on the database contents?
As for “native format”, how does one handle those sites which convert uploaded content from one form to another using processes which are undocumented and proprietary? Even if the conversion process is well documented, what assurances exist that metadata will be preserved? Many Content Management Systems support import/export programs which convert documents from their native format to a format more easily viewed from the Web (e.g. PDF or HTML). In many cases, valuable metadata is removed by the conversion process.
To Continue Reading: Click Here
——————————————
Source: Forensic Focus
By: Sean McLindenposted at 7:45am on Aug 20th
Loading ...