DOE sends a "litigation hold notice" regarding CRU to employees – asking to "preserve documents"

http://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/Logo_Gallery/Logos/New_DOE_Seal_Color.jpg

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed this document, see below the “read more” line.

It appears bigger things are brewing related to CRU’s Climategate.

WUWT commenter J.C. writes in comments:

I work at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. I’ve been following the Climategate scandal since its inception. The first time many of my coworkers had heard of the situation was when I asked them about it.

Well, well, well.

Look what was waiting in every single email Inbox on Monday morning:

______________________________________________

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.

If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.

Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.

Michael L. Wamsted

Associate General Council”

_______________________________________________

Everyone on-site who has an email account received this letter. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 people. How about that? And this is the first official mention of the entire subject that I have seen.

DOE-SR = Department of Energy Savannah River

SRNS = Savannah River Nuclear Solutions

SRR = Savannah River Remediation


NOTE: Some commenters raised some doubts about the authenticity of this email.

I checked out a couple of things before I posted this. The IP address of J.C. comes from the correct location in South Carolina, Aiken, and the name Michael L. Wamsted does work for DOE at the SRS in SC in legal. See http://phonebook.doe.gov/

Also the existence of the paralegal “Madeline Screven” listed in the email (whom I believe composed it) is listed in the DOE phonebook search of  “Screven” and is listed in the same building as Wamsted.

The “Council -vs- Counsel” spelling error could be something as simple as a spell checker substituting the wrong word, or just a dumb mistake when composing email where the spell checker would not flag “council” as it is spelled correctly.  Heck, I misspell “meteorologist” sometimes in correspondence, dropping an “o”. I have had a situation sometimes where “metrologist” (also valid) gets substituted on spell check. Spelling mistakes, compounded with spell checker substitution errors – they happen. I have one computer (the one I’m typing on) that always switches the word “because” to “becuase” in spell checks for some odd reason, and I can’t figure out how to correct it. So I live with it and try to manually fix it when I notice it.  There is another spelling error “Climate Research Unit at he University”. Which is a mistake I make from time to time, missing the “t” on the. Spell checkers don’t catch that one, since “he” is a correctly spelled word.

If the IP had not come from Aiken, SC where Savannah River Site and lab is, I would be highly suspect of it. But the IP address in Aiken and the names check out. Aiken is right next to SRS.

See the doc and map for directions here: http://www.srs.gov/general/about/directions_aiken.pdf

The language used also checks out, it has been reviewed by an attorney who frequents WUWT and he raised no red flags. Steve McIntyre points out that Dr. Jones got funding from DOE (of which SRS is part of). The different pieces connect pretty well and I don’t have a reason to doubt this memo sent via email today. – Anthony

======================

UPDATE: 12/15/12:36 PST

I called SRS Legal office just now and spoke with Madeline Screven, who is listed as a paralegal in the letter I posted. I found her telephone number via the DOE phonebook.

http://phonebook.doe.gov/

When I called, she fully identified herself in her greeting to me, I explained who I was, giving my full name. She asked if I was “on or off site” referring to SRS. I explained I’m off-site.

My question: “Do you have a litigation hold notice related to the Climate Research Unit.”

Her answer: “Yes we do”

Confirmed.

Share

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
423 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Expat in France
December 15, 2009 1:15 am

Horse bolted, stable door, perhaps?

Thomas Shapard
December 15, 2009 1:16 am

An intervention re funding at Penn State?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23612181/Sen-Piccola-Letter-on-PSU-Prof-Michael-Mann
Wow. If this is what it seems to be, it is really putting pressure on PSU to put the screws to Mann. I would seriously hate to be in his shoes about now. I assume as chairman of education on the Penn senate, this legislator can really get PSU’s attention.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2009 1:24 am

It’s starting to look a lot like Christmas!

Cold Englishman
December 15, 2009 1:26 am

Remember a few weeksago when Prof Jones was taken down to the local ‘Nick’ for questioning as a ‘witness’. I said then that it was to get him on record on tape, and probably under caution. Over here, our legal wheels move exceedingly slowly, but be patient, they’ll get there in the end. In the meantime Charles is going to Copenhagen to sort out the world. So we can all sleep safely in our beds, while he saves the world and its polar bears!

J. Peden
December 15, 2009 1:32 am

INGSOC (20:38:45) :
Of even greater import perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climategate_tko_in_copenhagen.htm

Keep it down up there, I’m trying to get some sleep. NO WAY

Atomic Hairdryer
December 15, 2009 1:37 am

Cue news later today of a successful underground nuclear test in the US
Cue news later today that due to an administrative error, the test detonation occured inside the DoE’s secure underground archives.
Wonder when NASA will get the mail?

Christoph
December 15, 2009 1:41 am

“I note that this is a “litigation” hold, not an investigative hold. Who has filed a law suit? And against whom?”

My guess, and it’s only a guess, is DOE is considering suing CRU for recovery of taxpayer funds provided to it in order to produce genuine climate science, that instead may have been used to produce fraudulent climate science and even both hide and destroy raw data.

Michael
December 15, 2009 1:43 am

Hi
Just to clear things up a bit. I’ve been posting here for a while – over a year maybe two, as ‘Michael’ and lately I’ve noticed another ‘Michael’ or maybe even more than one with the same screen name but I don’t troll. Maybe I’ll change to ‘Michael in Sydney’ from now on.
Cheers
Michael – in Sydney & not a troll.

Charlie Barnes
December 15, 2009 1:51 am

I’ve only just surfaced this UK morning and logged in so haven’t read any of the posts – except the first two or three. When I read the article, my impression was that it could be a hoax because of the spelling errors. In particular, the C in CRU stands for ‘Climatic’, not ‘Climate’ as is wrongly written by many all over the world.
Chas

TFN Johnson
December 15, 2009 2:00 am

Never mind all this: whatsupwiththe sun? Sunspot number now 28 (14 yesterday, 13 the day before, zero a week ago).

December 15, 2009 2:01 am

pat (22:26:00) : It will start as an attempt to scrub and whitewash. And it will backfire as scientists who want to earn their stripes realize their future is in exposing the hoax.
Yes – like young stags challenging the old harem-keepers. That’s at the top.
What is good at this level is to see the number of ordinary people who actually care about truth and real science. Even though the possibility of corruption is ever-present, at all levels. And as for Anthony, I just do not know how he manages. (and that goes for moderators too) Must have some angels holding up his writing hands.

Richard
December 15, 2009 2:03 am

Lucy Skywalker just posted this link to an email at CA. I think it maybe relevant (among others)
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1241415427.txt

Terrible But True
December 15, 2009 2:07 am

As I believe one (minor, if notable) aspect of the emails was how the protagonists viewed, and referred to those who disagreed with them, I have found this recent tweet exchange suggests that respect and sensitivity is still not a strong suit everywhere…
TreeHugger
Climate Change Skeptic Has Heart Attack on Live TV in Copenhagen (Video) http://bit.ly/6tEYpz #cop15
about 10 hours ago from HootSuite
TreeHugger
Thankfully he seems to be doing ok. I do wonder if the heated debate & stress from trying to disprove scientific consensus had an impact.
about 10 hours ago from HootSuite
Whilst the first is, I guess, news, perhaps in the second it may have been best to remain with the sentiment the first sentence.
I have posted to wonder what they might have printed had been a… ‘denier’.
This whole thing is getting very polarised, personal… and dirty. From all quarters. So few are really are safe now to claim the high ground.
Pity.

John Silver
December 15, 2009 2:11 am

I’m unable to make any sensible comment, all I can do is giggle like a little schoolgirl.

Alan
December 15, 2009 2:20 am

Excuse me – but what jurisdiction do Americans have over the UK – If any action is necessary (and I believe that it is) it needs to be a British court
This is obviuosly an amusing parody
Proud to be a cultured civilised European

generic commenter
December 15, 2009 2:25 am

So convenient that it’s taboo to get funding from fossil fuel companies, but just fine for Jones et. al. to get generous funding from the DOE, which pushes nuclear power.

Caleb
December 15, 2009 2:30 am

Politicians are very good at sensing a change in public attitudes. They are likely aware the public is nearing a “tipping point,” and can’t be moved by pictures of polar bears any longer. Therefore they will be on the look-out for scape-goats. They need some people to throw under the bus. If I were a “Climate Scientist” I’d be nervous right now.
It must be a terrible thing to witness faces which once beamed at you, (while handing you fat checks,) abruptly start regarding you coldly.
However I think “climate scientists” have been noticing a growing chill in the political atmosphere for several years. They likely have felt it is a travesty they can’t influence the political weather any better than they can influence the meteorological weather.

stephen richards
December 15, 2009 2:49 am

Tony Robinson is a firm believer in AGW in spite of doing many archeological digs, prehistoric programmes etc.
He simply doesn’t hear what his script is telling him.

RexAlan
December 15, 2009 2:58 am

I know this is OT but from a UK MSM “The Daily Express” this is amazing.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Unbelievable!

Syl
December 15, 2009 3:01 am

OT but just a few hours ago I noticed solar flux was up to 76. It’s now up to 79! The highest we’ve seen in a while, no? A few days ago (last I noticed) it was down to 70.
Nice sunspot group crossing the sun too.
Old Sol might go back into its funk again in a day or two. Or not. We’ll see.

mikey
December 15, 2009 3:03 am

Might the “litigation hold” notice have been sent because the DOE itself has been legally threatened or sceptic members of congress have made enquiries into how monies were spect with CRU?
So the “litigation hold” notice was instructed by DOE’s own lawyers fearing they will be sued for misappropriation of public money, and they now need to go over all data and documents in order to defend the charge.
I’m just speculating of course.

December 15, 2009 3:05 am

OT would people who know more than I do – pop over to this comment and ask him some pertinent questions.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100004391/fudgefactor-another-climategate-red-herring/

mikey
December 15, 2009 3:05 am

Alan,
If I’m not misatken, the DOE gives funding to CRU, hence US taxpayers cash may have been mis-appropriated. So it certainly is the DOE’s business to carry out due dilligence that they have not funded a scientific fraud.

MattN
December 15, 2009 3:08 am

Got my :popcorn: ready…..

December 15, 2009 3:16 am

I still can’t get over the email Lucy Skywalker has spotted.
I remember it from the initial trawl but didn’t take it in. These people must be wishing they’d used the phone instead.
What I find most amusing is Ben S being copied in for empathy reasons – Pat Michaels must be enjoying this.
And Tom W doesn’t seem the tiniest bit concerned at what Jones/Wang may have done, just how row out of it.
Move along there – nothing to see…

1 6 7 8 9 10 17