Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 FEBRUARY 2018

Courts Are Closely Following Amended Rule 37(e)'s Limits On Sanctions For Lost ESI

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

Within two years of its implementation, several cases show that amended Rule 37(e) is having its intended impact, as judges are carefully applying the criteria articulated in the Rule prior to...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Within two years of its implementation, several cases show that amended Rule 37(e) is having its intended impact, as judges are carefully applying the criteria articulated in the Rule prior to ordering curative measures or imposing sanctions. This Jones Day White Paper examines Rule 37(e) cases decided over the past year and explains why proper litigation holds are the first step for minimizing the risk of sanctions.

Our September 2015 White Paper, " Significant Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Expected to Take Effect December 1, 2015: Practical Implications and What Litigators Need to Know," examined how the amended rules were designed to focus courts and litigants on substantive issues and on reducing motion practice, especially motions for sanctions for failure to preserve Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"). We discussed the actual impact of the amendments in our September 2016 Commentary, " Noteworthy Trends from Cases Decided Under the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from