Zubulae V. Ubs Warburg Llc Case Study

1. No one has a duty to preserve everything in their possession forever. Bills has a duty to preserve evidence when Bills has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation. When looking at a question of whether or not Bills met its duty to preserve the answer of two questions are of critical importance: When does the duty to preserve attach, and what evidence must be preserved. See Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (N.Y.S.D. 2003).
a. Trigger Data
In this case Bills duty to preserve arose, at the latest, 6 months ago, when former investors sued the company seeking over $8 million in damages. It could also be that the duty arose at an earlier date, but the facts do not give any hint to if Bill would reasonably anticipate litigation prior to the lawsuit filed by the investors. If Bills should have known that the evidence was relevant to future litigation then the duty would have attached at that point.
b. What Must be Preserved

In this the investors claim that the company executives encourages the sales staff to report fraudulent earning from fake transactions. Evidence of the fraud, the investors claim, would be found in the emails and the corresponding attachments between sales, sales managers, and accounting. The emails sent between these people would fall under what Bills knows is relevant in the action or at least reasonably likely to be requested during