Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
AMD Intel Government The Courts News

AMD Claims Intel Inadvertently Destroyed Evidence in Antitrust Case 90

Marcus Yam writes "In an unpublished statement to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, AMD alleges Intel allowed the destruction of evidence in pending antitrust litigation. According to the opening letter of the AMD statement, 'Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Claims Intel Inadvertently Destroyed Evidence in Antitrust Case

Comments Filter:
  • That is a bit silly (Score:5, Informative)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @11:03AM (#18249592)
    Historically e-mail systems were never designed for intensive archiving and ad-hoc searching across the database. In fact, even the current generation of systems require bolt-on archivers to meet the new federal evidence requirements. And I talk to people every day at very large entities that are still using Outlook Express, local mailbox storage, and have no usable archiving system.

    Suggesting that the inability to search e-mail in legacy systems is "destruction of evidence" is more than a bit silly in my personal opinion.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @11:05AM (#18249618)
    I work at Intel and the retention policy is VERY short on sent items and equally short for all the other mail folders in the inbox. I hear of people losing emails all the time because of this. Hell, I have lost a few sent emails myself. Also, from what I heard (from friends in IT) that we only keep a backup of 7 days of all the exchange server data only for disaster/worst case scenario reasons.
  • don't be fooled (Score:5, Informative)

    by sharp-bang ( 311928 ) <> on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @11:09AM (#18249662) Homepage
    The claim of poor retention is increasingly a stock claim made by plaintiff's lawyers. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure increasingly place a discovery burden on all organizations. Anything and everything electronically stored is subject to electronic discovery, and if you don't have a retention policy that deals with what is subject to discovery when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable", you can be sure the opposing attorneys will point that out, even if it is BS.
  • by strike6 ( 823490 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @11:52AM (#18250156)
    This isn't an allegation. Intel has acknowledged losing documents. URL: iness/16843055.htm
  • Not all email (Score:5, Informative)

    by erbmjw ( 903229 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @12:06PM (#18250354)

    It's not all email from all Intel employees that must be retained

    1027 case-specific individuals at Intel were identified and from 2005 case initiation date Intel is supposed to have all of their email retained; of these 1027 case-specific persons AMD is allowed to stipulate 471 for court scrutiny of data.

    These employees, dubbed "custodians," are persons of interest in the legal proceedings.
  • Re:Poor AMD - RTA (Score:5, Informative)

    by erbmjw ( 903229 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @12:25PM (#18250626)

    The court instructed Intel to retain all email for 1027 case-specific individuals from the data of case initiation ie 2005.

    This has nothing to do with leaving AMD in a not so great light; but it does have everything to do with Intel not properly following court orders - Intel even admitted they screwed up!

  • by cmacb ( 547347 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @01:31PM (#18251674) Homepage Journal
    That's exactly what it is. My last months with a large government contractor they had numerous meetings with employees to inform them that they were *not* too retain e-mail, even in private caches. They made it clear that the issue was *not* storage space, admin overhead or anything such as that. They were very open in saying that they wanted the e-mail trail gone in case of a lawsuit. Individuals found hording their own copy of e-mail could be terminated with no prior warning. This was before "Sarbox", so I'm not sure if things have changed since (I certainly hope so!)
  • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2007 @07:00PM (#18256186) Journal
    When you merely fail to meet your obligation to stop destruction, you're not liable. Just ask New Orleans about Bush/Brown/Chertoff/FEMA.

    Actually, ask them about Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin.

    Making the disaster plan, and executing the plan for the first three days WITHOUT external help, was the responsibility of the locality. FEMA assistance wasn't supposed to be counted on until the fourth day - and even then it's just materiel and money to HELP the state and locality run THEIR plan, not a federal takeover of their responsibilities.

    Guess what day they showed up?

    Under the Posse Comitatus act the fed can't even send in people without permission from the governor (or a declaration of war against a rebellion). (That's why they gave a bunch of supplies to groups like the Salvation Army to take in - groups which the local officials then blocked from going to the area.)

What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie