The above snippets are just two good examples of how preservation language and issues have evolved since Craig wrote his first exemplar preservation letter for the community back in 2006. I frequently review client preservation/record management policies, protocols and compliance practices to spot issues such as those called out above. I just wish that every plaintiff wrote their interrogatories and preservation demand letters in such clear, proportional terms. That would support my recommendations and solution proposals when potential gaps/risks are found during an assessment. Craig’s exemplar is meant as a drafting reference to be adapted to your various scenarios.
For instance, it has a “[ When Implicated]” note on the section for requesting system sequestration or forensic imaging of key player ESI. Every matter may require differing levels of preservation. I have seen defendants push back successfully against demands to image all cell phones/PCs in civil discovery without any potential bad actors, fraud or relevant evidence from those devices. As opposed to Craig’s discovery Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, I prefer broad interrogatories and right sized discovery requests that deflate defense “overly broad and burdensome” arguments.
So what were your favorite clauses from Craig’s letter?