Replies

People need to read about "Spoliation" and how it is a Federal criminal offense to delete any communications including electronically stored data after there is any indication that there might be an investigation and proceedings.

The duty to preserve information – especially Electronically Stored Information (ESI) – when litigation is foreseeable. While the legal doctrine of spoliation (pronounced spoh-lee-ay-shən) has been long recognized, federal courts especially are now applying it with greater frequency in connection with information stored in electronic format.

Spoliation refers to the destruction (or material alteration) of evidence or to the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in litigation that is actually pending or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the destruction or alteration. If a party either fails to preserve or destroys potential evidence in foreseeable litigation, it risks sanctions for the spoliation of evidence.

One of my many hats is as a Forensic CPA. A notice concerning spoliation is one of the first things to be done, even before a suit is filed. The destruction of electronically stored data is also a criminal offense, not just civil.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY › Rule 37.
Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

RULE 37. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCLOSURES OR TO COOPERATE IN DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.

............
(e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored Information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

(f) Failure to Participate in Framing a Discovery Plan. If a party or its attorney fails to participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f), the court may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require that party or attorney to pay to any other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.

Rule 37(f) applies to information lost due to the routine operation of an information system only if the operation was in good faith. Good faith in the routine operation of an information system may involve a party's intervention to modify or suspend certain features of that routine operation to prevent the loss of information, if that information is subject to a preservation obligation. A preservation obligation may arise from many sources, including common law, statutes, regulations, or a court order in the case.

The good faith requirement of Rule 37(f) means that a party is not permitted to exploit the routine operation of an information system to thwart discovery obligations by allowing that operation to continue in order to destroy specific stored information that it is required to preserve. When a party is under a duty to preserve information because of pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, intervention in the routine operation of an information system is one aspect of what is often called a "litigation hold." Among the factors that bear on a party's good faith in the routine operation of an information system are the steps the party took to comply with a court order in the case or party agreement requiring preservation of specific electronically stored information.

Whether good faith would call for steps to prevent the loss of information on sources that the party believes are not reasonably accessible under Rule 26(b)(2) depends on the circumstances of each case. One factor is whether the party reasonably believes that the information on such sources is likely to be discoverable and not available from reasonably accessible sources.

For those who choose to read the details of the law, here is the link:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37