News & Press: Affiliates in the News

Matthew Verga, XDD: Courts’ Inherent Authority to Sanction, Spoliation Sanctions Part 4

Thursday, November 21, 2019   (0 Comments)
Share |

Courts’ Inherent Authority to Sanction, Spoliation Sanctions Part 4

A multi-part series reviewing decisions related to spoliation of ESI since the December 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

by Matthew Verga, JD, Xact Data Discovery

 

In “When the Bough Breaks,” we discussed the December 2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).  In “Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI,” we discussed available commentary and cases on what constitutes reasonable steps.  In “Intent to Deprive,” we discussed commentary and cases on intent to deprive.  In this Part, we review courts’ inherent authority to sanction spoliation.

 

As we discussed in the last Part, one of the primary goals of the December 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was to increase predictability and consistency for litigants by eliminating jurisdictional variations in ESI spoliation standards, their application, and the associated penalties.  Ensuring predictability and consistency, however, would require foreclosing other alternatives for addressing ESI spoliation.

 

Read more here


What our customers say?

©2018 Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists
All Rights Reserved