Tag Archives: Litigation Hold

Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

25 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by in Cell Phones, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Emails, Legal Technology, Litigation Hold, Municipal Law, Open Records Act, Preservation, Requests for Production, Sanctions

≈ Comments Off on Litgation Hold – Too Little Too Late.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Our Nation’s Largest City is Not Immune to eDiscovery Sanctions: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Law, eDiscovery daily Blog

http://bit.ly/1Rqmnc0

In Stinson v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 4228 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2016), New York District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence against the defendants for failure to issue a litigation hold, opting for a permissive inference rather than a mandatory adverse inference sanction against the defendants .

Case Background

In this civil rights class action against the City of New York, it was determined that the City did not issue any litigation hold until August 8, 2013, more than three years after the filing of the Complaint in this case and the litigation hold was not effectively communicated, and none of the officers who were named in the City’s initial disclosures acknowledged receiving it. . . .

Continue reading →

Is It Okay To Wipe A Former Employee’s Computer?

04 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Law Office Management, Litigation Hold, Office Procedures, Preservation, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Is It Okay To Wipe A Former Employee’s Computer?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Court Denies Request for Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Files of Departed Employees: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily

http://tinyurl.com/p2jfsqe

For many employers, it is normal procedure to “wipe” the computer of recently former employees after removing anything not already stored on the employer’s network. Is this a bad practice? -CCE

In Charvat et al. v. Valente et al., 12-5746 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2015), Illinois Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland denied the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions for the defendant’s admitted destruction of computer files belonging to two departed employees, finding that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith. . . .

Continue reading →

Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

20 Tuesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Relevance, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball on E-Discovery, Litigation Holds, and Evidence Preservation.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Path to E-Mail Production II, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

http://tinyurl.com/q4uozfh

This is the seventh in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

The Path to Production: Retention Policies That Work

(Part II of IV)

[Originally published in Law Technology News, November 2005]

We continue down the path to production of electronic mail. Yesterday, I reminded you to look beyond the e-mail server to the many other places e-mail hides. Now, having identified the evidence, we’re obliged to protect it from deletion, alteration and corruption.

Preservation
Anticipation of a claim is all that’s required to trigger a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence, including fragile, ever-changing electronic data. Preservation allows backtracking on the path to production, but fail to preserve evidence and you’ve burned your bridges.

Complicating our preservation effort is the autonomy afforded e-mail users. They create quirky folder structures, commingle personal and business communications and — most dangerous of all — control deletion and retention of messages.

Best practices dictate that we instruct e-mail custodians to retain potentially relevant messages and that we regularly convey to them sufficient information to assess relevance in a consistent manner. In real life, hold directives alone are insufficient. Users find it irresistibly easy to delete data, so anticipate human frailty and act to protect evidence from spoliation at the hands of those inclined to destroy it. Don’t leave the fox guarding the henhouse. . . .

Continue reading →

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Philadelphia Legal Opinion on Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence.

25 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Litigation Hold, Metadata, Preservation, Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Philadelphia Legal Opinion on Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Lawyer’s Duty to Preserve Social Media Evidence, by Hayes Hunt and Jeffrey Monhait, From the Sidebar Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nn6tmor

Lawyers must take ‘appropriate’ steps to preserve their clients’ potentially relevant and discoverable social media evidence. That is the key take-away from an ethics opinion recently issued by the Philadelphia Bar Association. However, lawyers may advise a client to restrict access to the client’s social media so long as the attorney neither instructs nor permits the client to permanently destroy that information. An attorney may even instruct a client to delete information from the client’s page if the attorney preserves that information, including metadata.

You Can Hide, But You Must Preserve
Changing social media settings to ‘private’ merely restricts who may access a web page. The opposing party can still access relevant and discoverable information through discovery or by issuing a subpoena. The committee concluded that this position satisfied Rule 3.4’s prohibition against altering or destroying evidence. As long as the attorney preserves the complete evidentiary record, including metadata, an attorney may advise a client to restrict access to the client’s social media evidence, or remove social media content entirely.

You ‘Must’ Produce Complete Social Media Content
To comply with discovery requests, a lawyer ‘must’ produce the client’s complete social media content if the attorney is aware of this content’s existence. This duty arises from Rule 4.1, which prohibits attorneys from making ‘a false statement of material fact or law to a third person,’ and Rule 8.4, which prohibits ‘conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.’ A lawyer that purposefully omits portions of social media content, or permits or directs the client to destroy social media content, violates these rules.

Also, a lawyer must take reasonable steps to obtain relevant information from the client when the lawyer ‘reasonably believes’ that the client possesses relevant information, such as photographs, links, or other social media content. Despite being obligated to take reasonable steps, a lawyer need not obtain information that was neither in the client’s possession nor the lawyer’s possession.
Frankly, this isn’t groundbreaking or a new duty, it merely reinforces the need for lawyers to better understand social media for purposes of litigation.

Excellent Case on Document Retention Policies and Litigation Holds.

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in E-Discovery, Hearsay, Judges, Legal Technology, Litigation, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Sanctions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Excellent Case on Document Retention Policies and Litigation Holds.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

No Sanctions for Following Records Retention Policy, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie’s Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/opq4t3t

It is not every day you see lawsuits about insurance policies from 1986 to 1987.

Add Judge Paul Grimm’s powerhouse footnotes and you get a great lesson in document retention policies and litigation holds (plus a great footnote on the state of mind exception to hearsay for all the evidence fans).