Ooooo, another trip to NYC?! Maybe you could land an interview with Charney this time? Or just land Charney himself?

". . . Or just land Charney himself?"

-this would at least make getting pictures of his condo easier.

The usual method of destroying a hard drive involves drilling a hole in it. I'll bet that just beating it with a hammer is insufficient to totally destroy it.

But Charney claims that he then threw the hard drive carcass into the trash. So unless someone wants to go trawling through Jersey landfills, it sounds like it's history.

Loyola 2L:

Even S&C hires Tier 2 law grads. They had a guy here who did very well who went to Wayns State University Law School. He now works in house for a bank. So you time may be better spent bsuting your butt like that guys did than whining on blogs.

where do you find the article. how did lat get it if it's not online?

What about all this menacing threat stuff by the firm? I can totally see that happening.

I have as much chance of getting a biglaw job as I do of winning the lottery.

WHY would you want one. Stop being such a whiny loser.

i haven't been following this for a while. remind me how this plays into the lawsuit?

L2L doesn't want a biglaw job! He's only mocking us. If you don't see that in the 11:44 message you are obtuse.

Charney did to his computer what L2L did to his career by going to a tier 2.

I am not mocking you. I'm mocking the fact that you're mocking me. I GO TO LOYOLA! Big deal. Yet all of you seem to think poorly of me because of it. I know people at USC and UCLA who got Biglaw jobs, and will now make $145k and more. Please let me at least mourn my lost chances.

L2L, you suck. Your school is lame. Please go away now.

The way this plays into the lawsuit is pretty clear... it's S&C's way of distracting things. The firm has to know what Charney must have emailed out of the firm, but it can harp on all this stuff and no one will look at the employment issues and S&C's own possible bad conduct. Slick but kinda sad if the firm can get out of the law suit this way. Personally, just b/c Charney is no saint doesn't mean the firm is one. i can totally see it threatening this guy, offering him settlement to destroy the drive and stuff. They are using the guise of caring about their clients as a way to deflect attention from themselves. If they get outs this lawsuit b/c of some sorry spoliation argument, I for one, will always consider that there was some truth to the suit against them. Maybe others won't, but many surely will always wonder.

Re: the hard drive, background info appears here:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/sullivan_cromwell_v_charney_to.php

I work in the mailroom now. Used to be a big-time corporate associate, until...

...on the plus side, I hear L2L will be joining me in the mailroom. Hope he's hot!

Maybe I can get a biglaw job destroying hard drives. Tier 2 grads are at least good for that. Aren't we?

This makes no sense. WHAT was Charney afraid of that he would beat the crap out of a hard drive? Especially AFTER a court order from Ramos to preserve all evidence. What was on there that would be so frightening??

Charney probably acted irrationally because he was under the stress of a "We'll crush you like a bug" threat from S&C.

Who knows what Charney was thinking. I bet he was threatened though. I bet he was scared out of his mind by threats. Who knows. I still cannot understand why his computer would matter anyway. He was pro se for a while too. Did they want him not to have a computer? None of this matters as to his allegations against the firm though. Maybe some credibility stuff for a jury - maybe not. It's all smoke and mirrors by master white shoe magicians.

Has it been found that Charney indeed did destroy his hard drive AFTER the court order from Ramos? I'm a little hazy on the dates.

Not clear what "evidence" was.

*Takes a hammer to his resume*

*Just winds up destroying his desk*

I think so - I think the testimony in the earlier hearing was that he destroyed it during the weekend. And S&C filed its suit and got a TRO on either Thursday or Friday

What about the firm threatening him and making a settlement offer in connection with him destroying the hard drive AFTER Ramos said whatever. Maybe at the time, the firm was concerned about Charney's computer. Sounds like the firm found a cause celeb once they started deciding what to do regarding the guy's lawsuit against them.

Sounds like the firm threatened or cajoled the guy into doing something so they caould create a "cause celeb" and try to weasle out of this lawsuit and look perfectly noble. It won't work with everyone. Should be interesting to see if it works with the judge though. Kinda hope it won't. If Charney's allegations are bogus, let a jury find that after a trial.

Obviously, some vital piece(s) of information is missing in regards to Charney's hard drive. One of the primary rules of negotiation is that you don't get rid of factors which you provide you leverage at the negotiating table. If Charney did indeed destroy the hard drive, which contained information S&C was extremely scared of (it seems) after some settlement agreed had been laid out and pondered, it would cause me to think either a) Charney misrepresented himself during the settlement negotiations and after the court order became irrational and scared because of this; or b) Charney made an honest mistake of not realizing that the evidence at issue in the court order included his hard drive. either way, it leaves me suspect of Charney and his judgment, and very curious as to what else is out there.

'agreed' should read 'agreement' in the above post on the fourth line.

and the settlement talks were also on thursday. So the timeline is 1) settlement talks, 2) countersuit and TRO, and 3) destroys hard drive.

But why? Why would he do it? He may have been scared of S&C, but he's not a complete idiot. There was a court order! What was on the hard drive that was worse than violating the TRO!

The drama grows!!

You also have to look at Charney's complaint. I mean, the guy claims mental anguish and emotional distress. If his allegations are true and he'd been enduring stuff for over a year from these folks, considering that his whole life was on the line I could see that a full on threat attack and chance or closure in a secreat settlement meeting could have driven him over the edge.

It's time for Aaron to fight back. The firm must have said something during settlement discussions that scared him into destroying the hard drive - i.e. a threat that the firm would uncover criminal or ethical violations when it got its inevitable look at his computer - then that in itself would be an ethical violation. You can't use threats of criminal prosecution or professional discipline to gain an upper hand in litigation.

And if the firm didn't say anything that crossed the line, then destroying the hard drive was just colossally stupid.

I take that back. It was colossally stupid to destroy the hard drive regardless. But at least if it was prompted by unethical threats, his law suit *might* survive the destruction of key evidence.

I agree with Armchair. You gotta wonder what this law firm has to hide. Seriously. To come after Charney like it has... and to keep coming after Charney looks so bad already and has no future in the law probably... is VERY telling. Time to fight back.

Has Armchair Litigator or anyone else here ever actually litigated? You're all in a tizzy about possibly "unethical" threats in a settlement negotiation? Charney started a major, major game of hardball with all of this, and S&C just played it right back. Telling someone, "if we find out you've stolen documents, there's going to be a big problem for you" is the kind of thing that gets said ALL the time in these circumstances. I'm sure you're going to find some disciplinary rule on this, but jeez, this is the real world. Charney was going to every media outlet that would talk to him and smearing S&C. "Unethical threats." Grow up.

Has Armchair Litigator or anyone else here ever actually litigated? You're all in a tizzy about possibly "unethical" threats in a settlement negotiation? Charney started a major, major game of hardball with all of this, and S&C just played it right back. Telling someone, "if we find out you've stolen documents, there's going to be a big problem for you" is the kind of thing that gets said ALL the time in these circumstances. I'm sure you're going to find some disciplinary rule on this, but jeez, this is the real world. Charney was going to every media outlet that would talk to him and smearing S&C. "Unethical threats." Grow up.

Well, Charney was prose and lacked S&C's resources. If S&C has nothing to worry about from Charney's lawsuit on the merits, then let it play out I guess. All the firm did was adopt the same behavior Charney did basically.

And it's hilarious how you just gloss over the obvious explanation for destroying the hard drive. Sure, it could have been those mean, mean threats that made him irrationally engage in a multi-step process of rendering the hard drive unreadable. Or maybe, just maybe, the person destroying the evidence had something to hide? That NEVER happens, right? What a wild notion.

STILL... what's S&C so worried about?

Exactly 2:11. These guys sounds like professors. The rules in the real world of law are a bit different than in their disconnected minds.

I thought S&C's request for TRO was denied.

Perhaps Aaron presumed that the Judge's order to preserve evidence had been directed to S&C - not unreasonable from the judge's perspective since it would be unlikely for the plaintiff to destroy relevant evidence in his own lawsuit. Then S&C says DESTROY THE HARD DRIVE, so he does. Then S&C says, how dare he destroy evidence. It screams bad faith on their part, and I really think it would be grossly unfair for the judge to sanction him when destruction of the hard drive is what the S&C suit was seeking in the first place. The fact that he did destroy it renders much of their suit moot, so they have to now focus on smearing him with this destroying evidence business. It's just a matter of S&C changing their tune to try to continue to deflect attention from Aaron's sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit. And it's working, at least on this blog, since the only thing anyone will talk about is desctruction of evidence.

Perhaps there is more dirty laundry on the subject than is disclosed in his complaint.

Aaron - if you are reading this, keep fighting. I am gay and was screwed by a bigfirm too (and I did NOT enjoy it), but have no concrete evidence. I wish I could help, and I couldn't be more sympathetic.

TEAM AARON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"what's S&C so worried about?"

What does that even mean? This is open court litigation that is following a media campaign launched by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has admitted to destroying evidence. You don't just let that pass because you want to show you're not "worried" about anything. What Charney admitted to doing is a home run for the other side in ANY lawsuit, let alone one like this. Of course S&C is going to feast on it -- not to "distract" people, although that is a nice ancillary benefit of Charney's actions -- but because this is an adversarial proceeding and the adversary just screwed up. S&C's lawyers would not be living up to their own ethical duties -- like that old zealous advocacy thing -- if they didn't use this to the fullest.

S&C may get off this time but if any other gay or other protected employee is abused again at that firm - - the firm will probably get nailed.

I wouldn't know anything about litigation. After all, I am only a tier 2 student who has no chance of making a real impact in the legal field. I will be stuck at a toilet firm doing PI and workers comp my whole life. I wish I wasn't such a loser. Why did I let Loyola con me into going there? I could have gone to med school!

GO to med school. You priobably have major debt anyway. Then you can be a Dr. and a lawyer.

I hate all you tier 1 silver spoon biglaw pansies. You think that just because I go to a tier 2 school that I am not talented or that I don't work hard. I have to work so much harder than you and I still will only be able to get a job in a toilet firm.

If I get this right, the claim is that ABC destroyed the hard drive because, during settlement discussions, S&C demanded he do so as part of the settlement. So if they didn't reach a settlement agreement (which they clearly did not), then why would ABC destroy the hard drive? I must be missing something.

The TRO was granted by Judge Ramos. Judge Fried refused to grant a PI at a later hearing, but he also ordered all parties to preserve evidence. Besides, S&C are the plaintiffs in S&C v. Charney.

And S&C asked him to destroy the drive before they got the TRO - not after. I don't see any baiting here. I don't see how he can sucessfully argue that they asked him to do it, when they got a judicial order asking him not to destroy evidence. Anything they said in settlement negotiations before the order just doesn't count. They may have wanted it destroyed when the case was going to go away - they very clearly did not want it destroyed after it became clear that there was going to be no settlement. Aaron had to know that - he destroyed evidence that they want for their case! He can't get around that.

This may or may not affect Charney v. S & C - but it looks really bad for S & C v. Charney. They're trying to prove that he stole stuff, etc. The fact that he destroyed evidence is not good news for him.

I don't know if this merits dismissal if his suit against S&C. I have no idea what kind of sanctions courts would give. Its just really, really bad for him re: their suit against him!!

By the way, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience that sucks. I don't think Charney can win this one, and maybe I'm a little skeptical of his specific allegations and conduct. But I can definetely agree that all law firms have a long way to go

what is loyola? is that a place in this country?

Oh Please,

Umm, yes, I have litigated quite a bit, including some "major, major games of hardball" that would make Brokeback Lawsuit look like a summer associate softball game in comparison. But I always took my ethical obligations very seriously. If growing up means compromising my integrity because all the big-kid litigators are doing it, then I'll happily be labeled immature.

L2L -

How do you define a "toilet firm?" One where you don't make $160k + bonus? Or one where you have to work 12-15 hours a day, 7 days a week? Or one where the only experience you have as a fourth year litigator is writing memos? Or some other criteria?

I suggest you re-define what you consider as a non-"toilet firm." You may find you are able to get that job and are happy there to boot.

Just a thought.

one is not sacrificing his integrity by threatening to take legal action against an adversary for stealing documents. ethical obligations are not remotely triggered in that situation.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Now please tell me where in my post I said that threatening a civil suit was unethical.

3:01,
http://nycinsurancelaw.googlepages.com/salarychart
Click on the links. These are the only places us lowly tier 2 grads get to work.
L2L

It scares me to no end if those of you posting on this topic actually graduated from law school and are engaged in the practice of law. Whatever you think of the merits of either side's position on the litigation, let's review what has been said here has occurred so far.

ABC stole documents from another attorney's files for his own advantage. Well, folks, that is a felony here in NY.

§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

Then, ABC destroys the hard drive in his computer, which presumably had all sorts of information relevant to both his pending lawsuit, and a second lawsuit he knew was forthcoming, including things like his e-mail, drafts of his complaint, and whatever else may shed some light on his circumstances and any other documents he may have "borrowed" from the office next door. Well, that too is a felony:

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding
or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or
prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such
evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or
used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and
intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act
of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force,
intimidation or deception against any person.
Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

Can any of you spell felony?? It goes something like J-A-I-L. It is no more relevant that he supposedly was told to do this than Sammy the Bull Garvano saying Gotti made me kill all those people.

Huh,
The law isn't as predictable as green people like to think it is.
Let me put it this way. How much money do you want to bet right now that Charney doesn't get punished in any way for destroying the hard drive? I don't want to hear you quoting statutes or other bullshit. I want a number.
You have to put everything in context, and when you do that you'll see that Charney will likely get off.
Huh indeed

most of the people posting on this site offering legal analysis are either a) not lawyers or b) not knowledgeable about employment discrimination litigation or litigation in general. those who are lawyers and qualified are most likely far too busy to offer informed opinion and analysis.

P.S. S&C will also likely get off re: Charney's allegations. That's why this whole thing is a stupid, time wasting, reputation damaging clusterfuck which doesn't benefit S&C or Charney.

S&C knows what Charney e-mailed out of the firm. Like 1:09 p.m. I see this as tactical. There is room for doubt, as others have mentioned, that Judge Ramos' order ever contemplated preservation of this home computer hard drive. I suppose it might be clearer if we had the transcript of the February 1 hearing. In the meantime, I am looking at Page 15 of the February 8 transcript:STILLMAN: In addition to that, your Honor, because Mr. Charney's computer was part of the Sullivan & Cromwell computer system, we have by simply looking at his computer, we know that there were countless additional documents which Mr. Charney sent from the office to his home computer and they number, I have a list here, of 18 plus pages of such documents. My conclusion: 1. Stillman and S&C knew which documents Charney e-mailed "home" [more accurately to his personal e-mail account]. 2. Charney's destruction of the hard drive is not likely directly relevant to his claim of sexual orientation discrimination, but, lucky for S&C, it is a thorny issue for Charney on many levels, as various comments have noted, especially 3:27 p.m. [The grand word "spoliation" sounds like it came right out of an plot twisting moment of a Law & Order episode] . 3. Whatever DiBlasi said in that meeting, they are trying to crush him. 4. They are taking an approach that is guaranteed to keep this lawsuit in the press and on the blogs, despite was is painfully obvious, i.e. they could have settled this a long time ago.

Frankly, if I were a client of S&C and I would be concerned that S&C, knowing Charney had emailed documents to his home computer, would allow him to simply destroy the computer himself and then settle with him. Why did they not require that this hard drive (now SO important) be turned over to them so they could be assured (a) that it was no longer in Charney's possession; and (b) that nothing had been "downloaded" if in fact that is something forensics could determine? Why would they say at a settlement meeting that destruction by Charney of his hard drive was a condition for settlement. S&C's counsel does not seem to be disputing that, prior to Ramos' order on February 1, S&C was so unconcerned with the fate of the hard drive or the client documents they believed it most likely had once contained, that they were willing to allow Charney to "destroy" it himself? Am I missing something? Should they not have taken a more aggressive stance during settlement talks if securing those documents was, in fact, a serious concern? Or is it coincidence those settlement talks were private and apparently involved some kind of non-disclosure agreement (alluded to on February 8 by attorney Eisenberg), whereas this "hard drive war" is now very public.

Sure, Charney might not have wanted S&C to have his personal home computer hard drive. But that could have been true for many reasons. While "Oh Please" might be on to something, the destruction may have been a response to what Charney perceived as S&C's intimidation in the settlement discussion, AND an effort to preserve his privacy, rather than to conceal something related to S&C's documents.

Food for thought, not meant to be taken as legal analysis.

L2L,

I find your response to my question of what you consider a "toilet firm" very interesting. You referred me to a website listing firms that do ID work, but you didn't answer my question.

I'm not interested in what firms you think you can get a job with. I want to know what you consider the criteria for a "toilet firm" (or the contrasting non-"toilet" firm). Is it the money that decides whether a firm is "toilet" or not? Or is the kind of work? Or both? But what is it you are looking for.

If you figure that out, you may be able to find a firm not on that website that will take you (depending, of course, on how you answer it).

But bug-crushing is a tad cliched. Couldn't the S&C lawyers have been more creative? Maybe they could have told Charney, "We will shred you into little bits, like a redlined draft merger agreement that has been superseded by a later version."

hahahaha

I gave you a website with links and everything. What do you want exactly? A 200 page paper?

oh please,

Charney did not intiate any of this as you have stated. S&C did - by acting in a discrimminatory way towards a hard working, brilliant lawyer.

The person who used thew Gotti analogy - right - serial murder is the same as allegedly taking a document to prove your case.

Get real.

Why did S&C really care about Charney's hard drive? Did they really think he was going to "misappropriate" client documents and thereby screw up a settlement - or worse yet expose himself to criminal prosecution?

S&C probably did not care about the hard drive.

L2L,

I wanted an answer to my question. Were you on the stand and I cross-examining you, I would have moved to strike your answer as non-responsive and asked you the question again (really, I would not likely have even asked that question as it is too open ended to be of any value in that context, but here it is valid and useful - if you honestly want to answer it).

But your second response is also interesting. It tells me you are not really interested in finding a job or getting help in doing so. You just want to whine about your perceived lot in life at a T2 school.

and, P.S., I did not go to a top 20 law school and do not work in BigLaw. I work at a mid-size firm (under 20 atty) and do not do any ID work. I know lots of fine attys who were at T2 schools, finished in the middle of the pack, and work at good small/medium-sized firms, making more than the firms listed on the website you sent me and (most importantly) not doing ID work. So if you quit your whining, you may be able to make yourself into a decent atty. If that is what you really want.

And I would object "argumentative" and the judge would side with me.

Just click on the website and read the links.

Regarding the people you know. We all know a lot of people. I know a college dropout who is now a billionaire. But a tier 2 degree should offer a little more than marketability based on "lightning can strike" optimism.

*Sigh* I guess we'll never know whether the judge would "side with" you. With your attitude you won't likely ever see the inside of a court room.

I suggest you speak to your friend the billionaire and ask him for a job.

Actually toilet firm lawyers are regularly in court. Click on the links and see.

So-called "toilet firm" lawyers are in Court. You, however, will not be. Your attitude makes it dangerous for any firm to let you even come close to a court room. The threat of malpractice for your sheer incompetency (because you refuse to work, but only will whine) and sanctions makes it prohibitive.

I'm guessing you're a naive 0L who is set to enter a tier2 this fall, and you are upset by the realism in my posts. I say this because you have no clue what goes on in toilet firms or in a courtroom.

Open the website I gave you and read the links.

301 - It's top firm lawyers who don't go to court. Bottom firm lawyers and government lawyers quickly get courtroom exposure.

Loyola 2L,

You have got to be joking around with your posts.

If you are not joking what is the point you have been trying to make?

Are you trying to getr someone here to offer you a job?

Are you screaming about the "system"?
What?

Loyola 2L mocks biglaw lawyers by pretending to want their miserable jobs. It's subtle but brilliant.

Loyola 2L,

Does Loyola know how much you despise their school?

Maybe they will give you a rebate.

Are you having financial problems?

Yes I'm having financial problems. I'm $100,000 in debt and unemployed for the summer. All I have to look forward to when I graduate is a job at a sweatshop firm paying $44k per year. That leaves me about $2,500 per month after taxes. Subtract out $1,100 each month for loan payments and I'm left with $1,400 per month to live on. I feel scammed and trapped in a life which is effectively nothing more than indentured servitude. Damn tier 2 schools.

I'm not about to enter law school. I am a 4th year associate. I have significant court room experience including a trial to verdict. I started in government (at a salary not far from your dreaded $44k) and now work, as I said, for a midsize firm that does not do ID work and has me in both state and fed court in NY just about once a week. I am well familar with the what you call "toilet" firms because when I worked for government, there were largely my co-defendants: WEMED, Lester Schwab, Schwartzberg's office - I know them well. Too well.

The point is, L2L, that you get what you put into it. You put nothing in, you get nothing out. You put a lot in, you get a lot out.

But back to S&C v ABC -- Anon @ 2:45 asked why would ABC destroy the hard drive, since they hadn't actually settled the case. A good question. Not sure I would want ABC representing me given his apparent questionable judgment. Other thoughts?

Actually, Schwartzberg's office is a PI firm and was usually plaintiff's counsel, but you get my point.

Loyola 2L,

You still have not told us what you really want to do?

If not practice law - then don't. You could make 44,000 waiting tables - but with no future earning potential.

Marry a rich older woman like sleaze bag Karl Rove did with his first wife - a Houston socialite.

Its a viable option.

Loyola2L, why don't you just admit you're a fucking troll?

Why do you post here, and make comments that have nothing to do with the thread? If you can't stay on fucking topic, then shut the fuck up.

YOU MAKE EVERY THREAD ABOUT YOU. I'M SORRY YOU'RE TOO FUCKING DUMB TO GET A JOB. BUT SHUT THE FUCK UP.

There. I said it.

5:56 is spot on, both as to (a) Charney's judgment in destroying the hard drive and (b) quality of lawyers vis law schools.

I do brass-knuckled commercial litigation in Beantown, and I've found educational pedigree is only weakly associated with quality of legal skills. In a related vein, I wouldn't trust my legal fortunes (as a client) with many of the law-review pukes from my Ivy League law school. The real meat & potatoes law gets done in the 5 to 7-digit range of case values, and you don't need a first-class pedigree to handle those. The Very Most Important thing (for those law students out there) is to find a mentor at your place of employment who will teach you solid skills.

L2L (to the extent you've not been subsumed by sock puppets) should lose the negative attitude. I'd even volunteer to help him, if he wishes to e-mail me at my eponymous yahoo account.

Charney farked up big time in destroying his hard drive. Kudos to S&C for trying to leverage the little twerp. And by the way, I believe the ethical constraint is that it is a violation of the DRs to threaten criminal or quasi-criminal sanctions for the sole purpose of gaining advantage in civil litigation (I believe that falls under the definition of "larceny by extortion" also, but my NY law is a little hazy).

-- ET!

The Loyola guy almost ruins ever chain of posts on Lat's site. Sometimes, I cannot even stand skipping them so I just leave the site.

I used to think of S&C as this grand law firm that was above all the crap you see in our profession. Now I see that it is more like the Dorian Gray of the profession. Oh well.

ABC's story has changed.

At his earlier court appearance, ABC said that he destroyed his hard drive becuase S&C asked him to do it as part of a settlement. The case didn't settle so there was no reason for ABC to voluntarily destroy the harddrive.

At his latest court appearnce, ABC's story changed to destroying the harddrive because he allegedly felt "threatened" by S&C. ABC didn't mention the "threat" in his first appearance.

And if ABC felt so "threatened" that he felt he needed to destroy the harddrive, why didn't he feel "threatened" enough to settle the case on S&C's terms or drop the case. Something isn't connecting about ABC's shifting story.

I totally disagree with 12:08. But hey - that's what make this country great, right.

"serial murder is the same as allegedly taking a document to prove your case."

He didn't purloin documents (for the most part) to help prove his case. The documents he stole (or had access to a stolen copy of) and leaked to the WSJ were not key to proving his case.

Regarding whatever was on the hard drive, does it really matter at this point? If S&C is the grandiose BigLaw firm everyone makes it out to be, then they surely have backup copies of whatever was on that drive somewhere. Even these "toilet" firms we keep hearing about probably back up all the files on all the computers through an offsite server late at night when most people are snoozing.

Seriously. It just goes to show the firm is making much ado to keep focus off itself

12:08 (yesterday) I don't see the story as shifting. First, there was no opportunity for ABC to respond to the issue at the previous (02-08)hearing, in fact he was never asked WHY but his lawyers offered the information to Judge Fried that the destruction was done at S&C's request at the (previously) secret settlement conference on January 31. (S&C has still not to my knowledge denied this.) The question of why and how was only raised at the February 8 hearing. Now we are learning more of the story. That he felt intimidated when the heavy hitters of Goliath Big Law Firm came down on him forcefully and telling him, among other things, that htey will crush him like a bug, does not surprise me. That's not a shift, that's an explanation as to what he was feeling when he carried out what was basically their instruction, and before Monday February 5 when he retained counsel. Maybe ABC anticipated settling after destroying the hard drive but they could not come to terms. From the transcript it's obvious that the first week of February featured calls between S&C and ABC's newly hired attorneys. Perhaps that's what they were discussing? I still wonder: who was the other "witness" at the settment conference, represented by counsel? Was that Gera Grinberg? If so, perhaps he could provide further explanation as to what transpired during that conference. Perhaps he can corrobate the bug crushing comment?

S&C is scoring BIGTIME on the distraction game. 9:49 is right on.
S&C's counsel Charles Stillman more or less stated in court on February 8 that they had all they needed to know which documents he emailed home to himself over, I assume, the 4-year period of ABC's employment. They had that information from the "Sullivan & Cromwell computer system." They could have cared less about what was emailed him, which is why, at the Jan 31 settlement conference, they simply requested that ABC destroy the hard drive himself. They weren't concerned about this red herring "preservation" or "spoliation" issue then. Nor apparently, did they forsee the PR problem they would have when ABC followed their instructions and destroyed the hard drive, leaving them no physical evidence to confirm that client documents were not removed from it before its destruction. It's S&C's story/strategy that shifts, not ABC's explanation.
See my comment above at 3:58 p.m. on Friday.

New York magazine has a whole story on this case. It mentions this blog too.

I've handled Plaintiff-side employment cases before, so I probably started this saga leaning in ABC's favor, or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But after following this matter, I agree with 12:08 (yesterday) - something isn't right about ABC's story. He's the *Plaintiff* in a case and destroys evidence? Wha??? Then ABC starts a distraction game saying S&C asked him to destroy the evidence and then changes it to being "threatened" into destroying evidence? Double Wha???? Perhaps ABC's two different stories are somewhat compatible, but imho, there's something not totally believable about it.

I suspect that ABC wasn't just trying to cover up the documents he stole from S&C - but he probably had porn or something else embarrassing on the hard drive.

I think that 12:09 is a simpleton but hey, whatever.