Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 2010 WL 366653 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010)

Key Insight: In class action for unpaid wages, court denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions arising from defendants? admitted failure to preserve potentially relevant video surveillance tape where, because of the primary purpose of the surveillance cameras, i.e., deterring theft, the court could not conclude that defendants was obligated to immediately identify the footage as potentially relevant to plaintiffs? wage claims and preserve it and where, when plaintiffs? claims were filed, ?much of the footage? had already been destroyed pursuant to routine recycling of the surveillance tapes

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid wages

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2021, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.