Tag Archives: spoliation

Are Employers Still in Denial About E-discovery Readiness? Survey Says ….

I recently gave a presentation about controlling e-discovery costs in employment litigation. The topic is especially relevant to employers because e-discovery costs and risks are often inherently one-sided. And there is nothing more frustrating for a company to settle a claim with little to no merit, simply because the cost of litigation – magnified by … Continue Reading

Avoiding & Reducing Risks of Sanctions in Employment Litigation

I 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 is becoming … Continue Reading

If an Employment Discrimination Claim Crashes & Burns Are You Going to be Burned in the Fire? Best Practices for Electronic Discovery Preservation.

Attorney Robert D. Brown, Jr. of the Gibbons law firm has a great write-up about a recent dismissal of an employee’s discrimination claim. The dismissal was granted after the plaintiff destroyed certain computer related evidence. See How a Case Can Crash and Burn: Why a Litigant Should Not Set Afire a Computer After It Crashes … Continue Reading

Proper E-Discovery Preservation Critical for Avoiding the Cuckoo’s Nest

Ken 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 claims. This … Continue Reading

Are Employers Still Confused When it Comes to E-discovery Preservation?

A 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 lead … Continue Reading

Former Employee Gets a Free Pass for Deleting Evidence in Employment Dispute

A recent employment termination turned litigation offers important lessons for employers and employees when it comes to preserving computer information maintained on company issued laptops and related equipment. In Larkin v. Trinity Lighting, Inc. (PDF) (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2011), Larkin was employed by Trinity as a salesperson and provided a company laptop, desktop computer, and … Continue Reading

Prominent Detroit Law Firm Settles Employment Discrimination Claims Following Allegations of Mismanaging E-Discovery Preservation

On 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 mishandling of its … Continue Reading

The Importance of Timely Preserving Email in Employment Discrimination: Part II

Part 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 and Cohn and … Continue Reading

The Importance of Timely Preserving Email in Employment Discrimination: Part I

A 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 a … Continue Reading
LexBlog