Chapter 14

1. Nicholas Varchaver, ‘‘The Perils of E-Mail,’’ Fortune ( February 17, 2003), 96.

2. Mathias v. Jacobs, 197 F.R.D. 29 (S.D.N.Y., 2000). See also Nancy Flynn and Randolph Kahn, Esq., E-Mail Rules, New York, AMACOM, 2003.

3. J. Robert Keena, ‘‘High-Tech Discovery Disputes,’’ Legal Tech Newsletter (December 2001).

4. Randall Smith and Kara Scannell, ‘‘E-Mail Is Sought in Quattrone Trial,’’ The Wall Street Journal (October 23, 2003), C12.

5. William T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984).

6. Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 204 F.D.R. 277 (E.D. Va. 2001) and Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 2002 WL 31864265 (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2002).

7. In re Cheyenne Software, Inc. v. Securities Litigation, 1997 WL 714891 (E.D.N.Y. Aug 18, 1997).

8. MichaelOsterman, ‘‘E-Mail Retention,’’ NetworkWorldMessaging Newsletter (January 28, 2002), www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/gwm/2002/01196628.html .

9. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 02 Civ. 1243 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 22, 2003). See ‘‘Zubulake IV: Defendant Ruled Negligent for Destruction of E-mail Evidence,’’ Kroll Ontrack Case Law Update and E-Discovery News (November 2003), www.krollontrack.com.

10. Christopher D. Wall and Michele C.S. Lange, ‘‘Recent Developments in Electronic Discovery,’’ Washington Lawyer (March 2003).

11. Ibid.

12. Nancy Flynn and Randolph Kahn, Esq., E-Mail Rules, New York, AMACOM, 2003.

13. ‘‘Top 10 Tips for Effective Electronic Records Management,’’ Kroll Ontrack, www.krollontrack.com.