This article appeared in Cybersecurity Law & Strategy, an ALM publication for privacy and security professionals, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Corporate Counsel, Internet and Tech Practitioners, In-House Counsel. Visit the website to learn more.
Judges across the country are not in alignment on whether spoliation sanctions can be warranted under the court’s inherent authority—and outside the scope of FRCP 37(e). Regular readers of our quarterly Case Law Review might recall that the court’s use of Inherent Authority was a topic of our Summer review in the September CL&S issue; where does FRCP 37(e), which governs negative inference sanctions for lost ESI, come in to play? And is lost electronically stored information (ESI) truly lost if it’s available outside of a physical hard-drive?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
