Spoliation will spoil your chances of winning your case

Spoliation is not what happens when you leave milk out of the refrigerator too long. It’s also not what happens when you drop spaghetti sauce down your favourite white top. In simple terms, spoliation is the act of spoiling or damaging something. In a legal sense, it is the destruction, alteration or withholding of evidence.

I’m sure you’re a good law-abiding citizen who would never dream of deliberately making data ‘disappear’. But what if a critical email did go missing accidentally and it was needed as evidence? Surely the judge wouldn’t throw the book at you for losing one email? Wrong. In most cases, judges aren’t impressed when data goes missing – accidentally or deliberately – and probably won’t let you off with just a slap on the wrist.

So why won’t a judge show you the benefit of the doubt if you accidentally delete ESI (Electronically Stored Information)? Because it deprives your opponent of their best chance to win the case. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in the USA, companies are expected to be in complete control of their data and make it available for search in an eDiscovery request within weeks or even days. If your ESI storage system resembles a teenager’s bedroom when you face an eDiscovery request, expect the judge to show you little tolerance and possibly even rule in favour of your opponent before the trial has really begun.

Here’s just one example of a case where one party has spoliated evidence through incompetence rather than deliberately deleting ESI. In Naaco Materials v Lilly Group, The magistrate ruled Lilly Group was in breach of its duty to preserve evidence. The plaintiff’s technical expert found that Lilly had made no effort to preserve evidence; it didn’t inform employees of the legal hold, didn’t suspend its routine destruction of data and waited months before searching servers for ESI relevant to the case. You can read more case examples of spoliation here and here.

Your best chance to avoid being accused of spoliation is being prepared. If you wait until you receive an eDiscovery request before you track down and organise your ESI, you have left it too late. Be prepared with a document retention policy. The first thing you should do is familiarise yourself with your obligations regarding data storage under your respective local, state and federal laws. Armed with this information, you can then create a policy on what data should be stored, how long it needs to be stored and most importantly, where you data will be stored. To avoid being accused of spoliation, your scheduled deletion of data should be suspended when the threat of litigation is reasonably foreseeable.

An accusation of spoliation will likely see your data come under even greater scrutiny and could spoil your chance of winning the case. Make sure you have a solid document retention policy in place and your data is quickly accessible to avoid getting on the wrong side of the law.

Sources:

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/19254/comment-accidental-data-deletion-still-considered-spoliation/


http://www.sbnonline.com/2011/10/how-to-ensure-your-electronic-information-will-be-ready-for-litigation/?full=1


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

Actually, Many Care About GroupWise

Reblogged from Osterman Research Blog:

David Strom wrote an interesting piece about the just-released GroupWise 2012 entitled No Once Cares That Novell Has A New Version of GroupWise.  His assertion is that GroupWise is yesterday’s news, has been supplanted by other platforms, and is simply a dying animal.

Although Mr. Strom is a very sharp guy, I respectfully disagree:

  • I'm certain that the vast majority of the 10,000 organizations cited in Mr.

Read more… 229 more words

Commentary on the relevance of GroupWise 2012, which was released this week.

How Canada’s new Anti-Spam Act could affect your email marketing

Businesses operating in Canada are set to come under one of the toughest anti-spam laws the world has ever seen. While Canada was dragging the chain when it came to introducing anti-spam legislation, it is now making up for lost time. Ottawa’s new law – expected to be operational early this year – has severe fines for violations and is viewed by some as too tough.

Known as CASL, the new law aims to crack down on spammers and mailing list companies but in doing so, tightly regulates the way businesses can market to prospective customers via email and online.

In a nutshell, CASL requires a business to obtain consent from the recipient before it sends out commercial electronic messages (CEMs). It isn’t limited to email; consent must be given for any electronic message, which could also include messages sent via social media, text messaging, instant messaging, sound or video. If your business operates outside of Canada, you shouldn’t assume the Anti-Spam Act doesn’t apply to you. If a computer system within Canada is used to send, receive or even route the message, then the law could also apply to you.

It is in obtaining consent before sending an electronic message where the Canadian Anti-Spam Act differs from its American equivalent. The United States’ CAN-SPAM Act requires that recipients are given an opt-out option from commercial messages but under CASL, recipients must opt-in to receive electronic messages.

The fines for violating the Anti-Spam Act are hefty. The maximum penalty per violation for an individual is CAD1,000,000 and $10,000,000 for corporations. With potentially crippling fines waiting in the wings for violators, how can you ensure your company is compliant?

The first thing is to be aware of which messages require consent before they are sent. There are a few exceptions, which include personal relationships or when the company is providing requested information. Consent can usually be implied if there is an existing business arrangement of two years or more, or if an email address has been disclosed in the course of business. You can read more about exceptions to CASL here.

If your electronic message doesn’t fall under an exception category, then you will need to obtain consent before sending it. The message should also include an unsubscribe mechanism. To ensure compliance, your company should establish procedures to obtain consent for electronic messages and educate staff on the Anti-Spam Act. The most important thing to remember before you press ‘send’ is the onus is on your company to prove you received consent.

Do you operate a business in Canada? How do you think the Anti-Spam Act will affect the way you market electronically? Please contribute to the conversation below.

Sources:


http://www.bennettjones.com/Publications/Updates/CanadasAntiSpamLegislation-CastingaWideNet/


http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/3977/anti-spam-law-draws-backlash.html


http://memeburn.com/2011/12/three-2011-developments-that-changed-your-inbox-forever/


http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/155664/Privacy/Preparing+For+Canadas+New+AntiSpam+And+Online+Fraud+Act


http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business