In a recent 2007 Colorado case entitled Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins Co of America a plaintiff's attorney claimed to lack the technological savvy required to view many of his client's emails. The attorney assumed that he would not need to produce those emails because he was unable to read them. As a result, the attorney only produced the ten emails he could view and ignored the remaining thousands of emails.

The attorney essentially argued that since the outstanding emails were not "reasonably accessible" they did not have to be produced. According to the attorney he "encountered software issues...and had no way of knowing the content." In addition the attorney noted that he "does not employ a full time computer technician and occasionally technology issues arise that exceed his computer expertise

Judge Boland rejected the attorney's reasoning and ruled that he could have hired someone with the required technological expertise to view the emails for him. In particular the judge remarked that the attorney "was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the [remaining] contents."

Judge Boland's message is clear...

When it comes to eDiscovery ignorance is never bliss.