Quintero Cmty. Assoc. v. Hillcrest Bank, No. 04-11-CV-00893-DGK, 2014 WL 1764791 (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2014)

Key Insight: Where defendants produced ESI that had previously been provided to the FDIC in the course of its investigation but could not provide the passwords to access the information and where the requesting party was told by “several companies” that the documents would be ?nearly impossible? to unencrypt, the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions reasoning that ?a presumption of spoliation only arises when there is evidence of ?intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth?? and that the requesting party had not shown intentional destruction (?QCA has not provided the court with sufficient evidence that Defendants, or their attorneys, placed the passwords on the discs, let alone evidence that these actors did so to intentionally block QCA’s access.?)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed property investment

Electronic Data Involved: Password protected ESI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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 © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.