Zubulake’s e-Discovery—The Untold Story
2
Zubulake’s e-Discovery—The Untold Story Interview by Tina Ayiotis, on behalf of Legal IQ Laura Zubulake, the plaintiff in the famous case that lead to landmark legal decisions in e- discovery is interviewed by Tina Ayiotis for Legal IQ. Tina, a corporate lawyer and adjunct professor, discusses Laura’s new book “Zubulake’s e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice,” as well as the new important discipline of information governance. Legal IQ: Laura, why did you write the book? L Zubulake: Several reasons. I would say my first, and main purpose was to educate people about the opinions. I'm sure a lot of people have read them. What's more important is if all you know about those opinions is from reading them, you really don’t know much about my case. What I wanted to do was educate how and why I did what I did. Also I wanted to clarify some misinformation and some misperceptions about my case. Generally, there's been an awful lot written. Most of it is accurate, but not all of it. And I hope that others will benefit from my experiences, learn from my errors, and learn from some of my successes. In the long run, I hope to start an e-Discovery consulting business, and I thought the book was maybe a good entrée into that business. Legal IQ: Could you please summarise the various e-Discovery opinions and the lessons learned you believe businesses should have taken from them. L Zubulake: There are really four Zubulake opinions that pertain to e-Discovery. Zubulake One, Zubulake Three, Zubulake Four and Zubulake Five., I write about them in detail in the book; some of my thinking, some of the strategy, and my reactions to the opinions themselves. Zubulake One, in my opinion, was the most important opinion of them all, because of what it allowed me to do. It allowed me to search for information, and information was critical. Gaining access to the information was critical in my case. Zubulake Three was all about the cost shifting: who should be paying for the restoration of the back- up tapes. Zubulake Four was about adverse inference. That is the opinion that I considered my greatest failure, because we did not succeed in obtaining adverse inference. However, for the legal community in general, it defined legal obligations, things like 1
-
Upload
helenwinsor -
Category
Documents
-
view
139 -
download
3
description
Laura Zubulake, the plaintiff in the famous case that lead to landmark legal decisions in e-discovery is interviewed by Tina Ayiotis for Legal IQ. Tina, a corporate lawyer and adjunct professor, discusses Laura’s new book “Zubulake’s e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my Quest for Justice,” as well as the new important discipline of information governance.
Transcript of Zubulake’s e-Discovery—The Untold Story
Zubulake’s e-Discovery—The Untold Story
Interview by Tina Ayiotis, on behalf of Legal IQ
Laura Zubulake, the plaintiff in the famous case that lead to landmark legal decisions in e-discovery is interviewed by Tina Ayiotis for Legal IQ. Tina, a corporate lawyer and adjunct professor, discusses Laura’s new book “Zubulake’s e-Discovery: The Untold Story of my
Quest for Justice,” as well as the new important discipline of information governance.
Legal IQ: Laura, why did you write the book?
L Zubulake: Several reasons. I would say my first, and main purpose was to educate people about the opinions. I'm sure a lot of people have read them. What's more important is if all you know about those opinions is from reading them, you really don’t know much about my case. What I wanted to do was educate how and why I did what I did. Also I wanted to clarify some misinformation and some misperceptions about my case. Generally, there's been an awful lot written. Most of it is accurate, but not all of it. And I hope that others will benefit from my experiences, learn from my errors, and learn from some of my successes. In the long run, I hope to start an e-Discovery consulting business, and I thought the book was maybe a good entrée into that business.
Legal IQ: Could you please summarise the various e-Discovery opinions and the lessons learned you believe businesses should have taken from them.
L Zubulake: There are really four Zubulake opinions that pertain to e-Discovery. Zubulake One, Zubulake Three, Zubulake Four and Zubulake Five., I write about them in detail in the book; some of my thinking, some of the strategy, and my reactions to the opinions themselves.
Zubulake One, in my opinion, was the most important opinion of them all, because of what it allowed me to do. It allowed me to search for information, and information was critical. Gaining access to the information was critical in my case. Zubulake Three was all about the cost shifting: who should be paying for the restoration of the back-up tapes. Zubulake Four was about adverse inference. That is the opinion that I considered my greatest failure, because we did not succeed in obtaining adverse inference. However, for the legal community in general, it defined legal obligations, things like litigation hold and duty to preserve, so I think for lawyers and corporations, Zubulake Four is a great learning lesson. Then came Zubulake Five, where I attempted, once again, to attain the adverse inference instruction, and was successful. What I detail in the book is how I did it, and what my thinking was, what my strategy was. I used more mathematics, more than anything legal, because I am not an attorney. I am a businessperson.
To download this interview in full please click here: bit.ly/Mkt2lW
For more information on this subject you may be interested to attend the forthcoming Information Governance & eDiscovery for Financial Services conference from 10 - 12 September 2012 in London, UK. For details please visit: www.ediscoveryfinance.com Any questions? Contact us on 0800 652 2363 or +44 (0) 20 7368 9300 or email [email protected] now!
IQPC
1
Please note that we do all we can to ensure accuracy within the translation to word of audio interviews but that errors may still understandably occur in some cases. If you believe that a serious inaccuracy has been made within the text, please contact +44 (0) 207 368 9425 or email [email protected].
2
