More poll results from the 10th annual UF Law eDiscovery Conference! These polls were from the Facing Preservation Dilemmas Head On session!
As discussed on Wednesday, the conference had huge attendance and several of the terrific educational sessions conducted polls. So, I will be covering poll results over the next couple of weeks, thanks to Maribel Rivera who provided me the raw anonymized results from all the polls. So, here are the Facing Preservation Dilemmas poll results for the Annual Judicial Panel session!
The session Facing Preservation Dilemmas Head On – Tackling Complexities of Workplace Collaboration Tools included Ralph Artigliere, President, Ralph Artigliere LLC; Amanda Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Suzanne Clark, Mass Torts Discovery Counsel, Beasley Allen Law Firm; Rose Jones, Partner, King & Spalding.
There were four polls during that session, each of which had more than 700 responses (range between 781 and 1050 respondents). Pretty darn good! Here are the results of each of the poll questions:
Do you use a form preservation letter that is modified for each case?
Ruh-roh – again! As you can see, two-thirds of 1,050(!) respondents said they do not use a form preservation letter that is modified for each case. Let’s hope some of those answered “no” because they don’t currently issue form preservation letters; otherwise, this is a very concerning result. I seem to recall that part of obtaining CLE credit for some of these sessions, so people may have submitted an answer to a question that didn’t apply to them.
When dealing with Rule 45 (or state equivalent) subpoenas for production of ESI from nonparties, do you contact the nonparty in advance to confer on production?
Here’s a question where “it depends” is included in some of the answers! More than two-thirds of 957 respondents either answered “YES, unless there is a legal prohibition from contacting the party” or “It depends on the circumstances, but I prefer contacting in advance if time permits”. That’s more than double the group that said “It depends on the circumstances, but I prefer NOT contacting nonparties” or “NO”. Hey, conferring on production isn’t just for parties to the case and it’s great to see that most respondents try to do that.
Do you have a standard protocol to assist your client with identifying custodians of ESI, including custodians who may no longer be employed by your client?
Just less than half of 818 respondents said they do have a standard protocol for helping identify ESI custodians. Honestly, that’s more than I expected. Identification of custodians is one of least covered topics in our industry and yet, it’s SO important. Hmmm, blog post idea!
Do you routinely issue litigation hold notices to third parties such as consultants and vendors?
More than two-thirds of 781 respondents said they do, which is good, but it certainly needs to be better, especially in the world we live in today where so much of our data is in the hands of third parties!
Still creating graphs for other polls, so expect to see a few more posts over the next couple of weeks. Hey, you’ve waited this long!
BTW, what better reason to start getting people ready for next year’s conference? The dates for it are in the graphic at the top of the post!
So, what do you think? Do any of these poll results surprise you? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners 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.