Litigation: Events courts consider when deciding if duty to preserve evidence has been triggered
We know there is no general duty to preserve evidence before litigation is reasonably anticipated, so the trick is to determine what facts the court will consider when determining when that duty attaches.
May 23, 2013 at 08:15 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
We know there is no general duty to preserve evidence before litigation is reasonably anticipated, so the trick is to determine what facts the court will consider when determining when that duty attaches. For an individual or company that initiates litigation, the obligation to preserve relevant evidence may be triggered before a lawsuit is commenced. Triggering events may include seeking advice of counsel, sending a cease and desist letter, or taking specific steps to initiate specific legal action. See, e.g., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc. (sanctioning company that destroyed documents while strategically planning to bring a specific lawsuit).
As for a potential defendant, the receipt of a prelitigation preservation request, a request to inspect, a demand letter, a cease and desist letter, a cure notice, or even a discussion with an opposing party or its counsel may trigger a company's obligation to preserve information relevant to potential litigation. Likewise, if a company learns an employee or former employee is seriously contemplating a lawsuit, if an event or other circumstance would reasonably put an organization on notice that a lawsuit is likely to be filed, or if a company has a history of litigation arising out of similar events or circumstances, the duty to preserve may be triggered. These events or circumstances must be examined in the context of an organization's history or experience with particular types of litigation. For instance, in Stevenson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., the court upheld sanctions against a railroad because it destroyed voice tapes immediately after an accident despite knowing that voice tapes had been used in earlier lawsuits to its advantage. That is, the railroad's experience in prior litigation should have caused it to conclude that the accident would lead to litigation where the voice tapes would be relevant.
Sometimes a party will receive its first notice that it must preserve particular documents or things upon receipt of a complaint or a document request from an opposing party. A party is generally not obliged to retain evidence before it has any particular knowledge of a potential complaint. Of course, receipt of a complaint, a discovery request, a subpoena or some other formal notice that a company is the subject of a lawsuit or a governmental investigation triggers the duty to preserve information relevant to that request, lawsuit, subpoena or investigation.
In any event, the preservation obligation is triggered only when, based on credible facts, a company determines or should have determined that litigation or a government investigation is probable. One way to help understand when that duty is triggered, it is to consider when it does not arise. For example, the duty is not triggered by a vague rumor or indefinite threat of litigation. Likewise, a threat to file suit that is not credible or one not made in good faith will not trigger a preservation obligation. A company may decide that the threat of litigation lacks credibility based on the threat itself, its past experience regarding the type of threat, the source of the threat, the legal bases for the threat, or similar facts. Id.
Don't ignore credible triggers. If your organization learns or receives credible information that litigation against it is probable from these or similar events, a court may determine from these facts that the duty to preserve was triggered when that information came to the company's attention. Once that happens, the key is to take steps to preserve appropriate documents, data and things. We will talk about the scope of that obligation in our next post.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250