Labor: Hold everything! How to know if you need a litigation hold notice
Recently, courts have served monetary sanctions ranging from $25,000 to $1 million to companies that failed to prevent the destruction of electronic evidence.
December 05, 2011 at 05:15 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Recently, courts have served monetary sanctions ranging from $25,000 to $1 million to companies that failed to prevent the destruction of electronic evidence. These sanction amounts reveal that the failure to implement a litigation hold and preserve evidence when required can have serious consequences for your business.
Many business owners, managers and human resources professionals believe that a company's duty to preserve information related to a potential litigation matter only arises once a lawsuit has been filed. This is not the case.
When your duty to preserve information arises
The duty to preserve material evidence arises when there is a reasonable likelihood of litigation. This standard is easily understood and applied in the context of being served with a complaint or commencing an action yourself. However, it is more valuable to consider scenarios in which the duty to preserve evidence is triggered because litigation could be reasonably anticipated.
The use of litigation hold notices to preserve information
Once the duty to preserve information arises, it is imperative to take appropriate action. An effective tool many companies use to preserve information in a potential litigation situation is a litigation hold notice. A litigation hold notice is a means to quickly suspend the current document destruction policies of your company and inform potential custodians that they must preserve relevant information. Such a notice is also helpful in describing the information to be preserved and identifying possible evidence locations.
Implications for failing to preserve information
If you fail to meet your duty, a claim for spoliation of evidence may be brought against you. Potential consequences of a finding of spoliation include: monetary sanctions, awards of attorney fees, costs for litigating document destruction, and adverse litigation results such as default judgments, dismissals or detrimental jury instructions regarding the destroyed evidence. These negative consequences underscore the importance of preserving relevant evidence.
It can be difficult to know whether it is necessary to preserve information or, once the duty applies, whether you are meeting it. There are also costs and effort associated with implementing a litigation hold that must be weighed. Your legal counsel can assist you in determining the appropriate approach the next time you face a potential litigation scenario and need to preserve relevant information.
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 All![Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/1e/3d/c892bfdc47fe99b0feda00733444/gentin-pierre-767x633.jpg)
Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
![GOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority GOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4e/5a/5ad53ca64ad18684ad71233d78fb/alvaro-bedoya-767x633.jpg)
GOP Now Holds FTC Gavel, but Dems Signal They'll Be a Rowdy Minority
6 minute read![Sylvia Favretto Elevated to Mysten Labs’ General Counsel Sylvia Favretto Elevated to Mysten Labs’ General Counsel](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/1d/67/c59c4fa44ff7b3979d2248f6841b/sylvia-favretto-767x633.jpg)
![New FCC Chair Hires Section 230 Critic as General Counsel New FCC Chair Hires Section 230 Critic as General Counsel](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/b9/d8/54d7475743b5b95da8386e800eac/adam-candeub-767x633-1.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
- 2Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
- 3Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame For Last Month's Air Disasters?
- 4Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
- 5A Message to the Community: Meeting the Moment in 2025
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