Case Summaries – Page 227 – Electronic Discovery Law

Cencast Servs., LP v. United States, 2010 WL 3488806 (Fed. Cl. Ct. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where data was lost as the result of the theft of a laptop and where hard copy documents were accidentally shredded despite efforts to preserve them safely, the court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference where defendant was ?at most? negligent and an adverse inference would be ?disproportionate to the offense?, where evidence was presented that indicated the requested presumption arising from the adverse inference was untrue, and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate significant prejudice as the result of the loss

Nature of Case: Tax related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop, hard copy

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Hennigan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2010 WL 4189033 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of data related to certain product defects and ordered defendant to bear plaintiff?s costs incurred for the 30(b)(6) deposition which revealed the existence of accessible, relevant information upon finding that both defendant and counsel failed to take reasonable efforts to locate responsive information; court ordered defendant?s to conduct searches using plaintiffs? proposed terms where the information sought was relevant and where defendant?s proposed terms were too narrow to identify all responsive information

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Incident reports

DeMeo v. City of Albany, 901 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion when it denied petitioner?s motion for contempt for respondent?s violation of the court?s preservation order where petitioner failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the loss and failed to establish the violation was knowing and willful where respondent testified he initially preserved but then lost the relevant video tape when, as he ?surmised?, his spouse cleaned his office without his knowledge ?and placed the hard drive back into rotation with the others, thus taping over the pertinent portions?

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleging assault commenced action seeking to preserve surveillance video

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 186616 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Noting the need to wield a court?s inherent power to impose sanctions with ?great restraint?, the appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose attorney?s fees as an additional sanction for defendant?s spoliation where the court provided an adverse inference instruction to the jury and where the trial court found the jury?s verdict provided ?adequate compensation? for plaintiff?s claims; appellate court noted plaintiff?s failure to renew its request for fees based on spoliation following the jury?s verdict

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives, backup tapes

State v. Dewitt, 2010 WL 5550243 (Ohio App. Ct. Dec. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court overruled defendant?s assignment of error and found no violation of defendant?s due process rights resulting from the loss of a portion of the video surveillance footage of his traffic stop where defendant presented no evidence of bad faith in the destruction or loss, where defendant failed to seek a preservation order to prevent its destruction, and where defendant offered only speculation as to the exculpatory nature of the missing portions of video

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer

Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., No. 08-cv-376-slc, 2010 WL 2571983 (W.D. Wis. June 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for review of costs, including costs related to forensic recovery of electronic data, where the court found that the costs requested by defendant were ?authorized by statute and were reasonably and necessary to the litigation?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp., 2010 WL 2812999 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanction and precluded plaintiff and its expert from offering opinion or evidence on any simulations relied upon in forming the basis of plaintiff?s Second Infringement Report where the input data upon which the simulations relied were lost in a computer crash and where plaintiff failed to timely disclose the destruction

Electronic Data Involved: Input data forming basis for expert’s report

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Catagory:Case Summaries