The ever alert Ralph Losey posted a note about another amendment to the Pension Committee decision by Judge Shira Scheindlin:
At page 10, lines 7-10 replace <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all employees (some of whom may have had only a passing encounter with the issued in the litigation), as opposed to key players, likely constitutes negligence as opposed to a higher degree of culpability.> with <By contrast, the failure to obtain records from all those employees who had any involvement with the issues raised in the litigation or anticipated litigation, as opposed to key players, could constitute negligence.>.
Judge Scheindlin’s last amendment was to correct language indicating all backup tapes should be saved. Here, she alters language to reduce the preservation and collection impact.
It is amazing to me how the ediscovery community, including judges, are co-creating ediscovery standards, practices and even case law.
According to Ralph on Eddupdate:
We can all breathe a little easier this weekend.
I heard this correction by Judge Scheindlin came about as a result of a question asked of her at a CLE event this week. Anyone care to share the details of that? Who gets the credit for bringing this glitch in wording to her attention?
Dueling Opinions (post on Pension Committee and Rimkus) here.