Navigating the Minefield of Contacting Former Employees of Corporate Parties
An in-depth review of the tricky situation when representing a witness' former employer. The author writes: "If you are counsel for a witness' former employer, and the ex-employee holds a grudge, is non-communicative, or has indicated they do not wish to speak with or cooperate with you, while that may be harsh, there is very little you can do about that. However, if you represent a former employer, and the former employee is willing to speak with you, one must often juggle somewhat confusing duties and ethical obligations."
September 26, 2022 at 10:00 AM
13 minute read
One of the more confusing aspects of representing corporate entities is the situation of where a former employee of your client is an essential fact witness. In the realm of civil litigation, these types of witnesses could fit one of numerous different examples: (1) a retail store manager who filled out the accident report following the customer's slip/fall accident; (2) an engineer who designed or marketed the product on behalf of the manufacturers, which is the subject of a products liability case; (3) an employee who happened to witness an incident which is the subject of a civil lawsuit, or one of numerous other examples.
Clearly, the attorneys for all parties will want to contact this witness, ex parte, to see what their version of events is. Depending how helpful that witness' testimony will be, a party may want to obtain a sworn affidavit of the former employee, and/or conduct a deposition or Examination Before Trial of the witness to "lock in" their sworn testimony. Of course, the level of cooperation the former employee provides, will often depend greatly on whether or not they left their employment on good terms or "not-so-good" terms.
Obviously, if you are counsel for a witness' former employer, and the ex-employee holds a grudge, is non-communicative, or has indicated they do not wish to speak with or cooperate with you, while that may be harsh, there is very little you can do about that. However, if you represent a former employer, and the former employee is willing to speak with you, one must often juggle somewhat confusing duties and ethical obligations.
This content has been archived.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 AllLaw Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
4 minute read2nd Circuit Revives Connecticut Lawyers' Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Ethics Rule
Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 2Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 3Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
- 4Insurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
- 5Slideshow: Jewish Bar Association of Georgia Marks 1st Year With Hanukkah Party
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