Catagory:Case Summaries

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance video despite notice of plaintiff?s claim and a request for preservation was at least grossly negligent in light of the failure to implement a litigation hold, the delay between the request for the video and efforts to retrieve it, and the ?collective ignorance? of the people who should have know how the surveillance system worked (the time stamp was set for the wrong time zone resulting in collection of the wrong footage?a mistake that was not discovered until the relevant footage had been recorded over) and where the court determined that because of the grossly negligent conduct, ?relevance [was] determined as a matter of law,? the court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference and payment of related costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Claims of discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, and religion, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and denial of a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff?s disability

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Key Insight: Reviewing District Court?s denial of spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion, Circuit Court found that the at-issue information should have been preserved and was intentionally destroyed but upheld the denial of sanctions based on plaintiffs? inability to establish relevance, a necessary element of the test for determining whether sanctions are appropriate

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Survey results)

Key Insight: In a brief discussion of spoliation, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions where, despite the fact that it ?seemed clear that there was some loss of evidence ? in the form of email and/or ?instant messages? ? at a time [Plaintiff] knew litigation was imminent,? the evidence suggested that the loss was inadvertent, there was no claim of bad faith or evidence to support such a finding, defendant?s claims of prejudice were largely speculative and defendant did not aggressively pursue the issue of spoliation; court?s analysis stated that ?in these circumstances? (referencing apparent inadvertence of the loss and lack of a claim of bad faith), ?the court looks to the culpability of those involved and the relevance of the proof to the issues at hand?

Nature of Case: Action to recover payment for propane transfers based on conversion and unjust enrichment theories

Electronic Data Involved: Email and/or instant messages

Key Insight: Considering Defendant?s argument for an adverse inference where his former employer failed to produce his former work laptop and files, the court noted that the ?undisputed evidence show[ed] that Colgate destroyed the data on the laptop shortly after Flower?s retirement,? and concluded that: ?When data is destroyed pursuant to normal recordkeeping practices (and in particular when it is destroyed in relation to a major event like an employee?s retirement), no adverse inference is warranted.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and its files