Electronic Discovery Law

Defendant's Use of "Evidence Eliminator" Software Warrants Adverse Inference

DirecTV, Inc. v. Borow, 2005 WL 43261 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 6, 2005)

In this case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff DirecTV and against defendant Randy Borow on claims stemming from Borow's unauthorized use of plaintiff's satellite television signal. Summary judgment was warranted, in part, because defendant had not offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that arose from his destruction of relevant evidence.

Five months after plaintiff filed its complaint, defendant used a software program called "Evidence Eliminator" to erase evidence requested by plaintiff from his computer. After defendant's computer was surrendered for inspection, plaintiff's forensics expert was able to recover some deleted files, including programs used by satellite pirates to intercept plaintiff's encrypted signal and files that listed the names of piracy websites that defendant visited or to which he had subscribed. However, other files were permanently deleted. On plaintiff's earlier motion for sanctions, the court concluded that the defendant had acted in bad faith and deliberately destroyed relevant evidence. On summary judgment, the court afforded plaintiff an adverse inference that the destroyed documents would not have favored the defense. Defendant failed to properly oppose summary judgment, and offered only general denials of the facts demonstrating his acts of piracy and evidence spoliation.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/admin/trackback/20393
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of more than 40 fully integrated offices located in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.

Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

e-Discovery Analysis & Technology group at K&L Gates, offering services related to ediscovery, review of electronic documents, electronic discovery and electronic evidence discovery.
K&L Gates LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
p. 206.623.7580, f. 206.623.7022