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
© 2024 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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