Risk, Reduce, Avoid.jpgI am presenting a Webinar titled E-discovery Tips for Winning Employment Cases, on May 31, 2012. One of the main problems the presentation addresses is reducing the difficulty employers experience when it comes to meeting their preservation obligations in response to employment litigation. However, with various regulations, record keeping requirements and creative lawyers, this

ToolboxCraig Ball, a top-shelf e-discovery thought leader, recently wrote a blog post asking “Should a Legal Hold ‘Waiver’ Be Secured from Departing Employees?” As explained below, the answer is no. 

But first for background purposes, a party – an individual or business entity – has an obligation to preserve information, in any

one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest.jpgKen Kesey, an American author best known for his novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962), once exclaimed “To hell with facts! We need stories!”

Mr. Kesey’s exclamation often becomes the storyline when a party to litigation mismanages their e-discovery preservation obligations and is then forced to respond to sanctions and spoliation

Line of Questions.jpgA recent employment discrimination claim highlights that employers and their lawyers still struggle with e-discovery preservation obligations. 

In Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc.(N.D. Ind. 6/28/2011) (PDF) the defendant former employer was ordered by the Court to implement a broad litigation hold to preserve information that may be discoverable (i.e., information that relates or may

Digital Background.jpgOn May 31, 2011, Crain’s Detroit Business (by Chad Halcom) reported that a prominent Detroit law firm and its Vice-Chairman had settled litigation involving various employment law claims filed by a former executive assistant. 

I previously reported on this employment discrimination litigation and also discussed the lessons to be learned from the law firm’s alleged

Fog & Uncertainty.jpgPart I of this post discussed the background of a party’s obligation to preserve email information in response to an employment litigation claim and when that obligation may arise. As explained in Part I, this discussion took place in the context of an employment discrimination claim against a prominent Detroit law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz

Shooting Self in Foot.jpgA prominent Detroit law firm, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, was recently sued by a former executive assistant after she was discharged following an on-the-job injury and related employment discrimination claims.

For any employer, dealing with such a garden variety employment discrimination claim has risks and costs. But the suit against Honigman also provides