Originally Posted by
EWR764
Transmitting a litigation hold letter to a putative defendant requesting preservation of potentially relevant materials is about as boilerplate as it gets if a lawsuit is contemplated. Generally speaking, the letter will contain a laundry list of potential sources of data to be stored as is, which, for an accomplished aviation plaintiff's firm like Corboy, will undoubtedly include a request for preservation of the CVR. It covers the bases for a spoliation issue if materials are destroyed after receipt of the notice.
IMO the offer to pax is both to make a public showing of goodwill and to secure the release of potential dubious claims from unsuspecting pax who might otherwise try to glom on to this case...
I am a lawyer, I do not practice aviation, or admiralty law. I agree it is boilerplate, but when the Dr's firm released it, the general public is going to think this is something more important. If you make an offer to the other passengers you have to make an offer that is commensurate with the circumstances. I do not know the level of anxiety the other passengers experienced. I would find it upsetting if LEO came on the flight and pulled someone kicking and screaming "they are going to kill me". My point here is that the offer seems insulting. Here: we will give you your money back. The fact that reporters are calling you at home, at work, that your wife saw you sitting with her friend on the aircraft. The cost of the flight doesn't cut it. This is what they went through. the man pulled off kicking and screaming, the man who police removed comes running back into the aircraft, they have to deplane, reboard be delayed. This could have honestly been very traumatic to the passengers, Again the biggest problem here is that United seems to be insulting the passenger Does anyone think Richard Branson would have made such a low ball offer?