Legal Trickery – Eric A. Parzianello

Business Law News from Michigan and Florida

  • About

    Legal Trickery is a blog devoted to business law news, cases and other developments from Michigan and Florida as well as commentary from its author, Eric Parzianello.
  • Eric Parzianello on LinkedIn

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Disclaimer

    I'm an attorney but you're not my client unless you've retained me in writing. Please do not rely on this blog for legal advice. You can read Legal Trickery's full disclaimer here. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask me to send you written information about my qualifications and experience.
  • Advertisements
  • Enter your email address to follow my blog and receive notifications of new posts by e-mail

  • Subscribe

  • Blog Categories

“We Followed Our Data Destruction Policy; Why Are We Still In Trouble?”

Posted by Eric Parzianello on September 22, 2009

Your company has worked with its legal counsel to develop a formal document and electronic data retention policy. You’re notified of a threat of potential litigation but continue to delete data in compliance with your retention policy. Can you still be in hot water for destroying evidence even though a lawsuit has not yet been filed? Absolutely.

An article in Business Law Today, Know When To Hold ‘Em, provides a good summary of a company’s duty to preserve electronic evidence in the face of threatened litigation. The “trigger” for suspending a policy which would destroy relevant evidence typically arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation. As noted in the article, this “decision often requires analyzing overall claim risk, the scope of claim knowledge within your company, and the risk of data destruction” if the policy was not suspended.

That “trigger” then requires the company to “suspend its document retention policies to prevent discarding data” and to “notify employees to refrain from deleting e-mails or other computer documents.”

Earlier this year, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an opinion with an extensive analysis regarding data destruction in the case of Forest Laboratories v. Caraco Pharmaceutical. The court found that the plaintiff’s obligation to preserve evidence began over three years before it ultimately filed its suit and ordered a hearing to determine “whether Plaintiffs acted with a culpable state of mind and whether the spoliated evidence is relevant.”

If a court finds that evidence was improperly destroyed, it may issue monetary sanctions or, even worse, may permit a jury to infer that the detroyed evidence was harmful to that party’s case.

Lesson: Even if you comply with a well-drafted data retention policy, you may be at risk if litigation is around the corner.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: