Preservation deadlines, custodians, third-party subpoenas and proportionality for a personal phone: this AC468 Unit 9 electronic discovery memo sets the scope of collection in a payment-diversion investigation. Searches like "ac 468 unit 9 assignment example", "ac468 unit 9 sample" and "ac468 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished AC468 Unit 9 electronic discovery memo looks like
Memo format, five pages. A deadline table opens it: sign-in logs retained thirty days, the departing employee's mailbox scheduled for deletion under the standard offboarding process, and the unified audit log's retention period, each with the date data begins to be lost and the action that stops it. The custodian section names six people and the systems each touches, from the accounts payable lead to the IT manager who collected her laptop. A proportionality section applies the factors of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) to her personal phone and recommends a targeted collection by a neutral examiner over a full image. Third-party sections cover the webmail provider, the domain registrar and the receiving bank. A closing section addresses Rule 37(e), a Rule 26(f) protocol and a Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) order.
How a AC468 Unit 9 example is structured
Deadlines come first because a preservation memo that opens with doctrine risks the data expiring while it is read. The duty to preserve is dated next, to April 2, when the genuine supplier's inquiry made litigation reasonably foreseeable, and the memo explains why that date governs. Custodians follow in order of how much unique data each holds. Collection scope is argued system by system, distinguishing the forensic images already made from targeted exports still needed. The personal phone receives the longest analysis, because the importer has no possession of it and the proportionality factors cut both ways: its likely relevance is high, but a full image reaches years of unrelated personal data. Third parties are reached by legal process, and providers generally withhold message content from civil litigants. Sanctions and protocol close the memo, framed as coursework analysis rather than legal advice.
Data with an expiry date
Sign-in logs, the departing employee's mailbox and audit records each have a date after which they begin to disappear. The table gives each date and the export or hold that stops the loss.
A duty dated to April 2
The genuine supplier's inquiry made litigation foreseeable that day, and the memo dates the preservation duty to it. Holds issued later are measured against that date, not the filing of any suit.
Six custodians, ranked by what only they hold
The accounts payable lead, the controller, the IT manager, a purchasing coordinator and two others each hold data found nowhere else. Hold notices go out in that order, each describing what that person must keep.
A personal phone and proportionality
Relevance is likely and the phone is outside the importer's control. The memo recommends a demand to preserve, then a targeted collection by a neutral examiner under an agreed search protocol.
Records held by others
The webmail provider, the domain registrar and the receiving bank each hold records the investigation needs. Subpoenas through counsel can reach account and login records, while message content generally stays out of reach.
Where marks go in AC468 Unit 9
Timeliness drives the grade on a preservation memo. One that analyzes proportionality at length but never identifies which data will expire first has missed the practical question the unit sets. Dating the duty to preserve from the lawsuit rather than from reasonable anticipation of litigation is the most common legal error and changes which losses count as failures. Custodian lists without systems, names with no statement of what each holds, give the hold notices nothing to describe. Graders also look for proportionality actually applied, factor by factor, to a specific source such as the personal phone; reciting Rule 26(b)(1) without applying it earns little. Overreach draws comment too: proposing a full image of an employee's personal device with no search protocol ignores the privacy interest the factors protect. Memos promising legal conclusions lose credit for tone.
Get a AC468 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Systems, people and retention facts are the raw material of a Unit 9 memo; list whichever the scenario gives, say whether the prompt assumes federal court, and attach the rubric. Deadlines lead, custodians are ranked and proportionality is applied to named sources. A first custom memo is free and returns within 24-48h.
AC468 Unit 9 questions, answered
When does the duty to preserve begin?
Generally when litigation is reasonably anticipated, not when a complaint is filed. In the sample that is April 2, when the genuine supplier's inquiry revealed the diverted payment. Courts assess preservation from that point, and Rule 37(e) addresses electronically stored information lost after it because reasonable steps to keep it were not taken. The memo presents this as coursework analysis.
Can the company image an employee's personal phone?
Not on its own authority when the phone belongs to the employee, and a court weighing proportionality may resist a full image even in litigation. The memo recommends a preservation demand followed by a targeted collection, limited by date range and search terms and performed by a neutral examiner, which addresses relevance while protecting unrelated personal data.
Can the memo follow my section's scenario?
Yes. Share the facts as given, the systems and people they name, any retention facts provided, the prompt and the rubric. Deadlines are identified first, custodians are ranked by the unique data each holds, and proportionality is applied to the specific sources your facts raise, with the analysis framed as coursework rather than legal advice.