Replies to post #7432 on Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

next look closely at the Arthur Andersen case language:

REHNQUIST:
“Document retention policies,” which are created in part to keep certain information from getting into the hands of others, including the Government, are common in business. See generally Chase, To Shred or Not to Shred:Document Retention Policies and Federal Obstruction of Justice Statutes, 8 Ford. J. Corp. & Fin. L. 721 (2003). It is, of course, not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances.

pp 7-8

Bear in mind that the case IS NOT a precedent for ours, but it validates the propriety of destroying docs pursuant to "a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances."

[Integralaction]

coool, homework. I'll get on that tonight. Thanks for the links!

Integralaction

[Integralaction]

Working on my homework, the Anderson case. Sorry it is late :) Thanks for the followup posts as well.

Very interesting and a surprisingly easy read (after years of Rambus court documents I feel like I could test out of the first term of law school).

In the full pdf of the court opinion there is another interesting part that I don't think you pointed me to yet. At the bottom of page 10 (pdf page 12) there begins a discussion of the need for a nexus between the document destruction and a "particular proceeding." The SC seems to be saying that a "partucular proceeding" needs to be forseen for document destruction to be a problem. Not exactly identical to the Rambus circumstances but in the time line of the shred days I think a parallel could be drawn that though there may well have been a general concern for future litigation there was now way to determine what any "particular proceeding" might be. In footnote 10, refering to the record of another case: "it is insufficient for the Government to show the defendant intended to affect some hypothetical future federal proceeding".

Integralaction