Extract from Kelly Twigger’s article “Back to eDiscovery Basics: Are Your Legal Hold and Preservation Processes Subject to Discovery?”
In Episode 138, Kelly Twigger discusses why the Court ordered Uber to provide information about its legal hold process, sources of ESI and steps taken to preserve ESI, a decision that re-emphasizes a party’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local court checklists in Doe LS 340 v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2024 WL 107929 (N.D. Cal. 2024).
Introduction
Welcome to this week’s episode of our Case of the Week series brought to you by eDiscovery Assistant in partnership with ACEDS. My name is Kelly Twigger. I am the CEO and founder at eDiscovery Assistant, your GPS for ediscovery knowledge and education. Thanks so much for joining me today.
If you haven’t yet had a chance to grab our 2023 eDiscovery Case Law Report that discusses the key trends and cases from last year, you can download that today.
Each week on the Case of the Week I choose a recent decision in ediscovery and talk to you about the practical implications. This week’s decision raises the issue of what details a party has to provide about the custodians and legal hold put in place for a matter. This decision is one of several over the last few years that is requiring parties to exchange much more detail about custodians on hold and the efforts to preserve ESI, including what sources of ESI are being preserved and when.
