AI Lawyer Blog
Preservation Letter (Free Download + AI Generator)
Greg Mitchell | Legal consultant at AI Lawyer
3
A Preservation Letter is a written notice that tells another person or organization to keep specific evidence that may be relevant to a dispute, investigation, or lawsuit. It is often used early — sometimes before a case is filed — to reduce the risk that key documents, messages, video, or other records are lost, deleted, or overwritten. In many disputes, evidence disappears through routine processes (auto-delete settings, document retention schedules, camera overwrites), not intentional misconduct — so a timely notice can make a practical difference.
This guide explains how these letters work, when they’re most useful, what to include (especially for electronic data), and common mistakes that weaken them. Laws vary by state and court, and this article is informational only — not legal advice.
TL;DR
Creates a clear written record that evidence must be preserved, which can support later court remedies if evidence is lost.
Helps define what evidence matters and the time period covered, reducing misunderstandings and “we didn’t know” defenses.
Is especially important for electronic data that is routinely overwritten, like surveillance video, logs, and chat records.
Pairs well with internal litigation hold steps, so you preserve your own evidence while requesting preservation from others.
Works best when it is specific, timely, and deliverable to the right recipient, not just a generic warning.
You Might Also Like:
Disclaimer
This material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Evidence preservation duties and remedies vary by state and court, and the appropriate scope depends on the facts of your situation. Consult a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction for advice tailored to your circumstances.
Who Should Use This Document
This document is useful for individuals, businesses, and organizations that anticipate a dispute where evidence could be lost quickly. It is common in personal injury matters, employment disputes, commercial conflicts, and cases involving digital records. It is used in both B2B and B2C contexts, and it can also be used with third parties who control important records (for example, a property manager with camera footage or a platform that hosts account logs). Cross-border situations are possible, but international preservation often requires additional strategy because different privacy and data-transfer rules may apply, including restrictions that can arise under sector or state privacy regimes and, in some matters, international transfer frameworks described by regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission’s privacy and data security guidance and the U.S. Department of Justice overview of cross-border evidence requests under MLATs.
User type | Typical use case | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Individuals | Car accident footage, medical billing records, harassment texts | Often time-sensitive (camera overwrites, phone replacements) |
SMBs / startups | Vendor disputes, chargeback investigations, employee separations | Benefits from quick ESI-focused scopes |
Mid-size / enterprise | Contract disputes, IP conflicts, compliance investigations | Usually paired with a formal internal hold and IT steps |
Non-profits / schools | Incident reports, HR issues, donor/vendor disputes | Must consider privacy and access controls |
This template is a strong fit when you can identify likely evidence and custodians. It is less suitable when you have no factual basis for a dispute or you need emergency court relief (like a temporary restraining order). In high-stakes matters, counsel should tailor both the scope and delivery method, and you may also need to align next steps with procedural rules for formal discovery in federal court as described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure overview on the U.S. Courts site.
What Is a Preservation Letter?
A Preservation Letter is a formal written request that the recipient preserve identified evidence because litigation or an investigation is reasonably anticipated. It is often called a preservation of evidence letter, a letter of preservation of evidence, or — when it emphasizes consequences — a spoliation letter or anti spoliation letter. The practical goal is to create written notice that relevant records must not be destroyed, altered, or overwritten; in federal cases, lost ESI is addressed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).
These letters typically do three jobs at once: describe the dispute context, identify the evidence categories to preserve (including ESI like texts, metadata, video, and logs), and request suspension of routine deletion plus written confirmation. Scope expectations are often evaluated through proportionality concepts reflected in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and if government records may be involved, FOIA.gov provides a baseline for federal public-record access (state laws vary).
In practice, preservation duties are triggered when litigation is reasonably foreseeable, and the most common risk is routine loss of electronic data. Security and handling steps should be reasonable and controlled; the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and the FTC’s privacy and data security guidance are useful reference points for protecting retained information.
A Preservation Letter works best when it is specific, proportional, and urgent — naming the key evidence sources, pausing deletion/overwrites, and creating a written record that supports later court remedies if evidence goes missing.
When Do You Need a Preservation Letter?
You need this document when evidence is likely to change or disappear — and when you want a clear record that the other side (or a third party) was told to preserve it. Many systems delete or overwrite data automatically, so delay can make the request ineffective. For federal context on lost ESI and proportional preservation, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and Rule 26(b)(1). It’s also useful when you anticipate insurance involvement, internal investigations, or regulatory reviews, because early preservation reduces disputes about timelines and missing records and can prevent “routine deletion” explanations from undermining your claim. Another practical trigger is when you plan to send a demand letter or file an incident report: preserving first ensures later requests aren’t met with “we no longer have that.”
Common situations where this document is strongly recommended include:
You expect litigation or a formal claim is likely (demand made, claim denied, counsel retained).
The evidence includes short-retention items like surveillance footage, logs, call recordings, or platform messages.
The other side or a third party controls the best evidence (store cameras, employer systems, SaaS vendors).
Video systems overwrite quickly, chat tools auto-delete (retention concepts are discussed in NARA records management guidance), or scenes/devices are likely to be repaired, replaced, or wiped.
Send the letter as soon as litigation is reasonably foreseeable — especially for ESI and short-retention sources — so deletion is paused, scope is defined, and you have documented notice if evidence later goes missing.
Related Documents
A Preservation Letter is often one piece of a broader evidence-control strategy. Related documents help you preserve your own records, request records formally, and position the dispute for negotiation or litigation.
Related document | Why it matters | When to use together |
|---|---|---|
Directs your own team to stop deletion and preserve records | When you anticipate a claim or suit | |
States the claim and requested remedy | After key evidence is secured | |
Subpoena / third-party subpoena | Compels production (with court authority) | Once a case is filed or where permitted |
Public records request (FOIA/state equivalents) | Requests records held by government agencies | Incidents involving public entities |
Incident report / witness statements | Captures contemporaneous facts and timelines | Immediately after events |
Evidence log / chain-of-custody form | Documents handling of physical/digital items | When physical items or devices matter |
A common workflow is: send a Preservation Letter (and implement your own internal hold), then follow with a demand letter or formal discovery tools once the dispute posture is clear.
What Should a Preservation Letter Include?
A strong letter should be specific enough to act on, but not so broad it looks unreasonable. The best approach is to state the dispute context, identify likely evidence sources, and request concrete preservation steps — especially for ESI. Clarity and proportionality make the notice persuasive, and federal concepts in Rule 26(b)(1) and lost-ESI remedies under Rule 37(e) are useful baselines.
1) Parties, incident, and dispute context
Identify sender/recipient and summarize what happened, when, and why litigation is foreseeable. A clear context reduces “we didn’t understand” defenses, and it should fit how preservation interacts with formal procedure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure resources.
2) Preservation request and instruction to suspend deletion
State plainly that relevant evidence must be preserved and routine deletion/overwriting paused, including an internal hold if the recipient is an organization. Explicitly address auto-delete and overwrite settings, and keep handling consistent with baseline safeguards in the FTC’s privacy and data security guidance where sensitive data is involved.
3) Evidence categories and scope boundaries
List tailored categories (emails, texts, chat, video, logs, reports, files, physical items) and define a reasonable date range. Boundaries help the request look workable and proportional. If government records may be involved, plan a parallel access route via FOIA.gov (state laws vary).
4) ESI specifics (systems, custodians, metadata)
Name the platforms and custodians likely to hold key data and ask to preserve native formats and metadata where feasible. This reduces “it was overwritten” or “we only saved screenshots” issues, and aligns with how courts assess ESI loss under Rule 37(e).
5) High-risk evidence and urgency
Call out short-retention sources (CCTV, dashcam/bodycam, call recordings, access logs) and request immediate export/preservation. These are often lost first through routine overwrites, and retention concepts are discussed in NARA records management guidance.
7) Confirmation request and contact information
Ask for written confirmation, a point of contact, and preservation “until further notice.” A confirmation response strengthens your paper trail for later discovery steps under the Federal Rules resources.
The best letters identify the dispute and timeframe, prioritize fragile evidence (ESI/video/logs), pause deletion, and request written confirmation — so you have clear notice and a defensible record if evidence later goes missing.
Legal Requirements and Regulatory Context
Preservation duties in the U.S. generally arise when litigation is reasonably anticipated, and courts evaluate whether parties took reasonable steps to preserve relevant evidence. In federal cases, Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses what courts may do when electronically stored information is lost and cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery; see the official rule on the U.S. Courts website for Rule 37(e). This framework matters most for ESI, which is often the evidence most vulnerable to routine deletion and overwriting. Preservation disputes also commonly turn on discovery scope and proportionality concepts reflected in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
State courts may apply different standards and remedies, and some states rely heavily on common-law spoliation principles. Because the applicable law can depend on where a case is filed, the key practical point is consistency: once preservation is triggered, document reasonable steps and avoid selective deletion. If you are preserving evidence internally, security baselines like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework can help guide access control and integrity practices.
Privacy, confidentiality, and regulated records can also matter. Your letter should focus on preservation rather than demanding immediate disclosure if a legal process is required. When government entities are involved, public-records processes may affect how evidence is accessed; FOIA.gov explains the federal FOIA process (state laws vary). Cross-border matters may require additional coordination; the DOJ’s Office of International Affairs provides background on MLAT processes.
Treat preservation as a documented, proportional process: trigger it when litigation is foreseeable, pause routine deletion for key ESI, control access and integrity, and account for privacy/public-record constraints under Rules 37(e) and 26(b)(1).
Common Mistakes When Drafting a Preservation Letter
Being too vague about what must be preserved
Generic language like “preserve all evidence” can be ignored or misunderstood. Vagueness makes it harder to prove the recipient had clear notice. Instead, list specific categories, systems, and a defined time window, using proportionality concepts reflected in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
Waiting too long to send it
Timing is everything for overwriting systems (video, logs, chat retention). A late notice can be useless even if it is perfectly written. Send it as soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, keeping in mind how federal courts evaluate lost ESI under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).
Ignoring ESI realities and metadata
If you don’t request native files, metadata, and relevant systems, the recipient may preserve only screenshots or partial exports. Incomplete ESI preservation can erase crucial context. Focus on native-format preservation where feasible and practical integrity controls informed by the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
Overreaching scope and sounding unreasonable
A letter that demands “everything” from “everyone” forever can backfire. Overbreadth makes your request easier to dismiss. Narrow the request to key sources and prioritize perishable items; retention concepts are discussed in the National Archives (NARA) records management guidance.
Sending it to the wrong person or failing to document delivery
If you send the letter to a generic inbox, it may never reach legal or IT. Delivery problems weaken your ability to show notice. Direct it appropriately and keep proof of delivery consistent with the U.S. Courts overview of federal rules and procedure.
The best letters are timely and targeted: they define scope, name key ESI sources, prioritize perishable evidence, and document delivery so the recipient’s notice and preservation opportunity are clear.
How the AILawyer.pro Preservation Letter Template Helps
The AILawyer.pro template is designed to help you send a notice that is clear, specific, and practical. It prompts you to define the incident context, identify the highest-risk evidence (like video and platform messages), and list ESI sources and custodians so the recipient can take concrete preservation steps immediately.
The template also includes structured language for time windows, confirmation requests, and proportional scoping. This helps reduce overbreadth while still preserving what matters most. A structured approach improves your paper trail, which is often as important as the words in the letter if preservation becomes disputed later.
Practical Tips for Completing Your Preservation Letter
Start by collecting the basic facts: the date/time, location, parties involved, and the evidence sources you already know exist. Specificity comes from details, not legal buzzwords. If video is involved, identify cameras, angles, vendors, and retention periods. For ESI disputes, keep scope/proportionality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and lost-ESI remedies under Rule 37(e) in mind.
Next, list evidence categories in priority order. Put perishable items first (CCTV, logs, chats, call recordings), then documents and communications. Name platforms and custodians, and request native files and metadata where feasible. Naming systems makes the request actionable for IT and legal teams. For integrity and access control concepts during retention, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework is a useful baseline.
Then, define scope boundaries: a reasonable date range and the topics at issue. Request suspension of auto-delete settings and preservation of relevant backups where they exist, without demanding restoration of disaster-recovery archives unless needed. A focused scope improves compliance and credibility. If government-held records may matter, plan parallel steps via FOIA.gov (state laws vary).
Finally, send it the right way. Direct it to counsel, risk management, or a registered agent, use provable delivery (certified mail/courier plus tracked email), and save proof and any confirmation response. If third parties or cross-border evidence are involved, DOJ background on MLAT processes explains why early preservation matters.
Gather facts, prioritize fragile ESI, set proportional scope, pause deletion, and document delivery/confirmation — so you can show clear notice and reasonable preservation steps later.
Checklist Before You Sign or Use the Preservation Letter
Recipient is correct and likely to route the notice to legal/IT, not just a generic inbox.
Incident description is specific enough to identify the dispute and timeframe.
High-risk evidence is prioritized, especially video, logs, and short-retention data.
ESI sources and custodians are identified, with a request to preserve metadata/native formats where feasible.
Scope boundaries are reasonable, with a defined time window and relevant categories.
A written confirmation is requested, with a clear point of contact.
Delivery method is documented, and proof of sending/receipt is retained.
FAQ: Common Questions About the Preservation Letter
Is this letter required before filing a lawsuit?
Not always, but sending early written notice can strengthen later arguments if evidence is lost after the dispute becomes foreseeable.
Can I send it to a third party that isn’t being sued?
Yes. If a third party controls key evidence (like camera footage), a letter can be a practical step. Formal subpoenas may still be needed later to obtain copies.
Should I include legal threats or cite penalties?
A professional tone is usually best. General references to preservation duties are often enough, and aggressive threats can make the letter look unreasonable.
Do I need to list every possible document?
No. Focus on likely evidence categories and key systems. A tailored list plus a clear timeframe is more effective than an exhaustive but unrealistic demand.
What if the recipient says they can’t preserve everything?
Ask what they can preserve, what is at risk, and whether alternatives exist (exporting video now, extending retention). Documentation of these discussions can matter later.
How does this relate to an internal litigation hold?
An external letter asks others to preserve evidence; an internal hold is your own process. You generally need both when litigation is reasonably anticipated.
Is email enough to send it?
Sometimes, but proof of delivery matters. Use a method that creates a reliable record, and consider sending to multiple appropriate recipients (counsel plus a business address).
Get Started Today
A timely, well-scoped Preservation Letter can help prevent evidence loss, reduce future discovery fights, and make your position clearer if a dispute escalates. Use the AILawyer.pro template to organize the incident facts, identify the most perishable evidence first, and request concrete preservation steps with a written confirmation. You can generate a customized draft with our AI Document Builder and then have a local attorney review it — especially if the matter is high-stakes, involves complex electronic systems, or requires coordination with third-party vendors.
Sources and References
U.S. Courts overview of federal rules and procedure
U.S. Courts website for Rule 37(e)
You Might Also Like:
