> It can't be discoverable if it doesn't exist ...
That's great, and for some things the court can ask you "Well *why* haven't you got it?" and then you're fucked. Now you're explaining in front of a parliamentary committee why you destroyed what would turn out to be evidence.
> It can't be discoverable if it doesn't exist ...
This cuts both ways. I've seen plenty of litigation go south because one side had evidence and the other side had nothing because they deleted/shredded/lost the proof.
> It can't be discoverable if it doesn't exist ...
That's great, and for some things the court can ask you "Well *why* haven't you got it?" and then you're fucked. Now you're explaining in front of a parliamentary committee why you destroyed what would turn out to be evidence.
> It can't be discoverable if it doesn't exist ...
This cuts both ways. I've seen plenty of litigation go south because one side had evidence and the other side had nothing because they deleted/shredded/lost the proof.