Failing to preserve documents can lead to costly sanctions in the event of litigation. However, the amount of data many businesses must track and store is reaching epic proportions.
To help lessen the load, several of the country’s largest corporations are lobbying for changes to the federal rules governing record retention. The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would specifically amend the standard for preserving electronically stored evidence.
While storing electronic records can be a hassle, the failure to produce requested documents during litigation can seriously impact your case. When a party causes “the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or [] fail[s] to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation,” they can be found guilty of spoliation. Reilly v. Natwest Mkts. Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir. 1999).
In addition to imposing financial penalties for improper document retention or destruction, courts may also instruct the jury that because you failed to produce requested documents, the jury can infer that those documents could have been harmful to your case, which is commonly known as an “adverse inference.” However, not all federal circuits follow the same legal standard for assessing the level of culpability needed to impose sanctions.
In testimony before the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Microsoft Inc. argued that the lack of uniformity and predictability forces them to hoard thousands of documents. They further highlighted that the preservation of electronically stored information costs tens of millions of dollars and countless hours in employee labor.
The proposed amendments to F.R.C.P. 37 (e) could help bring greater clarity. Under the proposed rule changes, a court could only issue sanctions if it finds that the failure to preserve electronically-stored information “(i) caused substantial prejudice in the litigation and w[as] willful or in bad faith; or (ii) irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity to present or defend against the claims in the litigation.” Thus, sanctions would generally not be imposed based on a company’s negligence alone.
Additional hearings are scheduled over the next several months, and the public comment period expires in February 2014. We will be closely tracking the status of the federal rule amendment and will provide updates as soon as new information becomes available.
If you have any questions about the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or would like to discuss how they may impact your New york or New Jersey litigation, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Is It Time to Purge? Corporations Pushing for New Evidence Rules for Electronically Stored Records
Author: Robert E. Levy
Failing to preserve documents can lead to costly sanctions in the event of litigation. However, the amount of data many businesses must track and store is reaching epic proportions.
To help lessen the load, several of the country’s largest corporations are lobbying for changes to the federal rules governing record retention. The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would specifically amend the standard for preserving electronically stored evidence.
While storing electronic records can be a hassle, the failure to produce requested documents during litigation can seriously impact your case. When a party causes “the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or [] fail[s] to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation,” they can be found guilty of spoliation. Reilly v. Natwest Mkts. Group, Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 267 (2d Cir. 1999).
In addition to imposing financial penalties for improper document retention or destruction, courts may also instruct the jury that because you failed to produce requested documents, the jury can infer that those documents could have been harmful to your case, which is commonly known as an “adverse inference.” However, not all federal circuits follow the same legal standard for assessing the level of culpability needed to impose sanctions.
In testimony before the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Microsoft Inc. argued that the lack of uniformity and predictability forces them to hoard thousands of documents. They further highlighted that the preservation of electronically stored information costs tens of millions of dollars and countless hours in employee labor.
The proposed amendments to F.R.C.P. 37 (e) could help bring greater clarity. Under the proposed rule changes, a court could only issue sanctions if it finds that the failure to preserve electronically-stored information “(i) caused substantial prejudice in the litigation and w[as] willful or in bad faith; or (ii) irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity to present or defend against the claims in the litigation.” Thus, sanctions would generally not be imposed based on a company’s negligence alone.
Additional hearings are scheduled over the next several months, and the public comment period expires in February 2014. We will be closely tracking the status of the federal rule amendment and will provide updates as soon as new information becomes available.
If you have any questions about the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or would like to discuss how they may impact your New york or New Jersey litigation, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
