/ March 5, 2009

Adventures in E-Discovery: Attorney Sanctions

According to Professor Marcus, special reporter to the committee responsible for producing the 2006 E-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “there could be new pressures on outside counsel” due to a recent ruling in the case of Qualcomm v. Broadcom. where retained counsel was sanctioned for failing to monitor client’s E-discovery.

In the past, judges have punished parties for discovery misconduct. However, here, the court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) which states that in signing discovery filings, attorneys are certifying that they have made reasonable inquiry into the accuracy and motivation behind discovery. The court also found that in Qualcomm, the attorney should have prevented the client from limiting its search into relevant emails.

Click here to read the entire short comment on this opinion in the Yale Law Journal’s online “Pocket Part.”

Click here to read our previous E-discovery post about preserving clients’ websites when litigation commences.

Comments are closed.