The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
The basic outline established by the famous decision in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, provided that a producing party must bear the cost of producing online data, near-line data (such as that on optical discs), and data from offline storage, such as that on magnetic tapes. The requesting partry only pays if data is recovered from back-up tapes or fragmented data in file slack. But what's the difference between magnetic tapes and back-up tapes? According to Zubulake IV, tapes are accessible when they are used for regularly for information retrieval, but only fall in the back-up category when they are maintained strictly for disaster recovery. There is an exception if a company can locate documents for a particular employee on the tapes used for disaster recovery - then the data is deemed accessible and cost does not shift.