We’ve all seen it coming and it may now be the norm. Yet another court has ruled there should be no “different standards” for email (and other electronically stored information) and social media use in regards to eDiscovery.
As outlined in this case summary on Electronic Discovery Law (published by K&L Gates), to address “emotional distress” both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for producing all communications with each other via “email, text, and social media platforms.” This requirement is to show the severity level of the distress caused by the plaintiff’s and defendant’s interactions.
While we at Hanzo aren’t surprised about these developments, most companies are caught completely off guard. It’s why we feature numerous white papers, webinars, and one-on-one demonstrations. Our technology and solutions are designed to keep clients’ entire web content preserved and accessible.
If you read the case summary, you’ll see the court requested both social media and email communications from July 2008 to present. Without having archived the social media portion, how will either party be able to produce their social media content in context? They can’t.
What all of this (and the many more cases showing the prevelance of these types of social media and website content requests) adds up to is how businesses are capturing their web content for easy eDiscovery production later? There’s no predicting where technology will be 5 or 10 years from now. With a native format archive, that won’t matter. Without one, the consequences could be huge.
For further information about web archives and eDiscovery, download our white paper.