Litigation Holds: Creating Effective Notices, Implementing Efficient Collection Processes, Protecting Privilege
Recording of a 90-minute CLE video webinar with Q&A
This CLE course will discuss why practitioners must revise and update outdated litigation hold notices, policies, and implementation procedures, as well as best practices for doing so. The program will offer suggested language for notices and recommendations for preserving, collecting, reviewing, and producing new and emerging media. The panel will also review when litigation hold communications and practices are discoverable and best strategies for maintaining confidentiality.
Outline
- Preservation triggers and retention policies: mitigating risk without over-preserving
- Litigation hold notices: creation, implementation, and oversight
- What should be included in a litigation hold notice
- Who should send it
- Outside counsel
- In-house counsel
- Company managers
- Who should receive it
- Related parties
- Third parties
- Interested parties
- Oversight and ensuring continued employee awareness after implementation
- Beyond email
- Documenting the process
- Electronically
- Manually
- Discoverability of hold processes and notices
- Attorney-client privilege
- Work product doctrine
- Loss of protection
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- What complexities must be considered in creating and implementing litigation holds?
- What types of new media must be addressed?
- What should in-house and outside counsel do to mitigate the likelihood of facing spoliation allegations?
- What defense theories exist to combat spoliation allegations?
- What policies should be effectuated to lessen or avoid potential penalties in a finding of spoliation?
- What strategies and policies will best protect privilege and work product status?
Faculty
Andrew J. Felser
Shareholder
Glade Voogt Lopez Smith
Mr. Felser has handled hundreds of court appearances, depositions and trials in state and federal courts over a 37 year... | Read More
Mr. Felser has handled hundreds of court appearances, depositions and trials in state and federal courts over a 37 year span. His cases have involved a wide range of legal issues in almost every field of law.
Close
Lionel M. Lavenue
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner
Mr. Lavenue’s practice focuses on patent trial litigation, including 19 bench or jury trials, and on creating and... | Read More
Mr. Lavenue’s practice focuses on patent trial litigation, including 19 bench or jury trials, and on creating and managing large patent portfolios. With experience in over 200 patent cases, he has managed or served as first chair in numerous district court litigations, including more than 60 cases in the E.D. Texas, almost a dozen patent infringement cases and/or matters under Section 1498(a) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, more than a dozen disputes under Section 337 before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and multiple arbitrations. Mr. Lavenue has particular insight into patent disputes involving international discovery under Section 1782. He has been involved in more than a dozen granted 1782 proceedings throughout the U.S., all with 100% grant rate. His broad client base spans an array of industries from aerospace to automotive to financial services to medical devices.
Close
Chad Main
Founder
Percipient
Mr. Main is an attorney and the founder of Percipient. Prior to founding Percipient, he worked as a litigator in Los... | Read More
Mr. Main is an attorney and the founder of Percipient. Prior to founding Percipient, he worked as a litigator in Los Angeles and Chicago. Mr. Main launched Percipient on the belief that when technology is leveraged correctly, it makes attorneys even more effective. He also hosts the Technically Legal Podcast.
Close