Case law is a great teacher of best practices, which is clear from these ten recent case law rulings involving chat/collaboration apps from Cimplifi!
Their latest post in the “Getting the Message” series (Getting the Message: Ten Recent Case Law Rulings Involving Chat/Collaboration Apps, available here) discusses (wait for it!) ten recent case law rulings involving chat/collaboration apps! Those cases address disputes involving authentication (one case), proportionality (two cases) and sanctions (seven cases!). Here’s one of the cases:
State v. Jesenya O.: The Supreme Court of New Mexico, considering an appeal relating to the authentication of social media evidence, found that the State’s authentication showing was sufficient under New Mexico Rule 11-901 to support a finding that, more likely than not, the Facebook Messenger account used to send the messages belonged to Jesenya O. (Child) and that Child was the author of the messages, so the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Child’s delinquency adjudications.
What are the other nine of ten recent case law rulings involving chat/collaboration apps? Find out here! It’s only one more click! 😉 If these cases don’t convince you of the importance of addressing chat/collaboration apps in discovery, what will? They’ll “bowl you over”! See what I did there? 😀
Related Posts
Tomorrow’s E-Discovery Day Case Law Webinar Will Be Magnificent!: eDiscovery Webinars
Changing Slack Retention Policy Leads to Adverse Inference Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law
No Time for Just Kiddings When Negotiating Slack Custodians, Says Court: eDiscovery Case Law
Smoking Gun Slack Exchange Among Reasons for Default Judgment for Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law
So, what do you think? How is your team currently addressing discovery of data from chat/collaboration apps? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.