EDRM

In Part Two of this blog series, I discuss a recent case regarding noncompliance with preservation provisions in an ESI protocol and provide best practices for negotiating and drafting an ESI protocol. In Part One of this series (which you can find here), I analyzed how courts have resolved ESI protocol disputes with TAR and metadata provisions.

As our work force has shifted to mobile and remote working practices (a trend in place before COVID, which only accelerated during the pandemic), businesses have turned to collaborative messaging tools such as Slack and various versions of Teams to manage communications. On the positive side, by using these messaging tools, organizations are able to more efficiently discuss ideas and brainstorm solutions. However, when an organization becomes involved in a dispute and those communications are potentially relevant to the dispute and need to be preserved and collected, the process may not be as straightforward as a simple email collection.

While the term sounds quite formal, with respect to e-discovery, in practice, “Information Governance” really means getting your electronic house in order so that you can mitigate risks and expenses should e-discovery become an issue in the future. “Getting your electronic house in order” covers the entire data lifecycle, from the initial creation of electronically stored information (“ESI”) through its final disposition, and potentially involves an organization’s entire suite of technology and related processes, policies and strategies. Indeed, IG becomes the foundation and framework of an organization’s  management of its information assets and, importantly, the degree to which e-discovery processes are streamlined and cost-efficient is dependent upon having effective IG policies and procedures in place.