Draft Litigation Hold Notice For New Product Liability Matter

---
name: draft-litigation-hold-notice-for-new-product-liability-matter
task_id: litigation-dispute-resolution/draft-litigation-hold-notice-for-new-product-liability-matter
description: Drafting a litigation hold notice for a newly-served class action requires identifying likely custodians from the complaint’s allegations, mapping each to relevant data sources, addressing any active data-migration or retention risk that could affect preservation, and producing both a hold notice and a preservation action memo as separate deliverables.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Litigation Hold Notice for New Product Liability Class Action (Medical Device)

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the complaint and service materials as the trigger package: identify the product, alleged defect, affected population, time frame, asserted theories, and any requested relief that expands preservation scope.
- Separate the work into two outputs: the hold notice for recipients and the preservation action memo for operational execution.
- Identify whether there are active risks to preservation, including system migration, retention rollovers, departing personnel, shared mailboxes, mobile devices, legacy repositories, or third-party custody.
- If the matter implicates multiple business functions, enumerate the functions first and tailor instructions by function rather than issuing a generic enterprise-wide notice.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Drafting a hold notice that names custodians only in broad functional terms without tying each group to concrete data sources and preservation steps.
- Failing to connect the alleged product issue to the categories of records most likely to matter in a medical-device class action.
- Ignoring an active migration, deletion cycle, or archive transition that could erase relevant data if not suspended immediately.
- Missing the need to preserve data held by a departed or departing employee before access, devices, or cloud credentials are lost.
- Treating the notice as a one-time email rather than a controlled preservation process with acknowledgment, monitoring, and escalation.
- Omitting the preservation action memo or reducing it to a narrative summary instead of an executable task list.
- Drafting legal statements without anchoring them in the controlling preservation duty or retention-suspension framework.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- The duty to preserve arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and the trigger date governs retrospective preservation scope.
- Preservation must be reasonable, prompt, and targeted to relevant information sources; counsel should identify, communicate, and monitor compliance rather than merely circulate notice.
- Litigation holds supersede ordinary retention schedules for covered custodians, systems, and repositories.
- For a class action tied to a medical device, likely relevant categories include design history, engineering files, risk analyses, verification and validation, complaint handling, adverse-event information, regulatory submissions, manufacturing and quality records, labeling, training, field communications, post-market surveillance, and corrective-action materials.
- Preservation obligations generally extend to electronically stored information, hard-copy records, chat and collaboration tools, shared drives, personal devices used for work, and cloud-based repositories within the party’s control.
- If third-party vendors, distributors, investigators, or service providers hold relevant data within the party’s control or practical reach, preservation notice should be considered for those sources as well.
- Use clear, non-technical language for custodians; use operational specificity for IT and business owners.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Start with the complaint: identify the device, the alleged failure mode, the affected users or class definition, the period of alleged exposure, and the core liability theories.
- Build a custodian map from the allegations: executives, product development, quality, regulatory, manufacturing, complaint intake, medical affairs, sales and marketing, customer support, IT, compliance, and legal.
- For each custodian group, identify the likely data sources: email, messaging, documents, shared drives, device files, product databases, lab notebooks, test results, complaint logs, training records, meeting materials, and mobile devices.
- Check whether any repository is migrating, being decommissioned, or subject to purge rules; if so, specify the suspension measure and the owner responsible for implementing it.
- Check whether any employee has left or announced departure; if so, identify devices, accounts, and local files needing immediate capture or access preservation.
- Translate the legal duty into recipient-specific instructions: stop deletion, preserve documents, preserve metadata where practicable, do not alter records, and route questions to designated counsel or coordinator.
- Draft the preservation action memo as an execution document: what must be done, who does it, when it must be done, and how compliance will be confirmed.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Preserve the chronology of events: service date, hold trigger date, internal investigation start, known device issue dates, and any migration or departure deadlines.
- Distinguish between upstream sources of product design and validation information and downstream sources of complaints, complaints handling, and field performance data.
- Where multiple systems contain overlapping content, preserve both the primary system and any archive, backup, or synced copy that may hold unique metadata or attachments.
- If the matter spans business units, preserve the handoff points between functions because those often contain the most relevant factual record.
- If a migration or termination event is imminent, escalate the preservation measure above routine notice circulation and document the immediate protective step first.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Produce two separate files, in this order: `litigation-hold-notice.docx`, then `preservation-action-memo.docx`.
- The litigation hold notice should read like a directive to non-lawyers: matter description, preservation obligation, examples of covered information, recipient-specific instructions, retention-suspension language, and a contact point for questions.
- The preservation action memo should be operational: custodian groups, key systems, immediate IT actions, departure-risk handling, any third-party notices, deadlines, owners, and compliance verification steps.
- Use industry-conventional headings and plain prose; do not mirror any checklist or rubric wording from the source materials.
- Make the notice actionable at the recipient level and the memo actionable at the implementer level.
- Before finishing, ensure both named files are complete, non-empty, and contain operative preservation language rather than a description of what a hold notice should do.