In Defense of Genger: Background

Ages ago by internet standards (late February), Law.com hosted a two-part post criticizing the Delaware Court of Chancery's decision in TR Investors v. Genger.  Post author Leonard Deutchman, General Counsel at LDiscovery LLC, asserts that the Court got the decision wrong because it (1) doesn't understand the technology invloved and (2) doesn't understand the law of eDiscovery.

I have been chomping at the bit to post a reply but have been consumed with finishing the 70-page (not including appendices) internal Morris James eDiscovery Protocol that overlays the EDRM with project management principles, and the accompanying 6-hour training course, but I digress...

Before I post my defense of the Genger decision, it would be useful for all my loyal readers (primarily my mother and wife) to first read the Law.com articles criticizing the Genger decision.

Part I:

Does Discarding Unallocated Space Deserve Contempt?
Overwriting deleted files leads to sanctions for 'international man of mystery'

Part II:

Seeking Legal Ground in Unallocated Space
Absent an obligation to preserve data, can a party be faulted for destroying it?

I will give you all a few days to get through these posts before I post my defense.  Cheers!

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.delawareediscovery.com/admin/trackback/199196
Comments (2) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Paul C. Easton - April 29, 2010 2:43 PM

To hell with the Genger case, tell us more about the Morris James eDiscovery Protocol and training course!

Chris Spizzirri - May 3, 2010 9:24 AM

I wish everyone shared your LPM enthusiasm Paul. I hope to discuss the Protocol and training program soon. In fact, we are considering making the Protocol freely available, in which case it will be posted here.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.