Key Insight: Court held defendants in contempt for failing to preserve documents in compliance with a court order; reasoning that because documents had been destroyed, no monetary sanction would coerce their production, the court ordered that defendants pay the reasonable costs associated with the government having to bring and prosecute the motion
Nature of Case: SEC litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Despite the intentional deletion of ESI by defendant?s employee, court declined to impose evidentiary sanctions where there was no showing of prejudice (because the vast majority of deleted ESI was recovered); court also denied request for attorneys? costs and fees pursuant to its inherent authority or under Rule 37
Nature of Case: Putative Class Action alleging a product defect
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of surveillance tape where duty to preserve arose upon request for the evidence-three months after the fall occurred- and where plaintiff did not show that defendant destroyed or lost the video and photographs with ?culpable intent or in a negligent and possibly reckless manner after Defendant?s duty to preserve the evidence arose.?
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance
Key Insight: Reasoning that ?proving only that a message came from a particular account, without further authenticating evidence, has been held to be inadequate proof of authorship,? appellate court upheld exclusion of Facebook messages at trial where alleged author of the message at issue admitted the message was from her account, but denied authorship of the message and indicated that her account had been hacked; court?s analysis includes extensive discussion of authentication of social networking content
Nature of Case: Criminal
Electronic Data Involved: Facebook message
Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee(s) were found to have allowed the loss of relevant video surveillance tape, despite repeated notification of its relevance and requests for preservation, and to have done so intentionally and in bad faith, court declined to enter default judgment but precluded defendant?s presentation of certain defenses and ordered payment of attorney?s costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and payment of half of such costs and fees related to a prior motion in which defendant?s dishonesty regarding the existence of the at issue vide resulted in costs to the plaintiffs
Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged wrongful detention of teens for shoplifting
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance
Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)
Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata
Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings
Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had shown good cause and granted motion to serve expedited discovery on the identified Internet Service Providers of Does 1-21 for the purpose of learning the identity of the Does for service
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers
Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.