Backup Media Recycling – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

In re St. Jude Med., Inc., Silzone Heart Valves Prod. Liab. Litig., 2002 WL 341019 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2002)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Court entered supplementary pretrial preservation order to address “newly created documents” and backups of electronic data; regarding the latter, the order prohibits “the routine erasure of computerized information potentially relevant to the subject matter of this litigation,” but states that “The full and complete back-up of any server or other computer on a periodic basis (e.g. monthly) shall relieve the party of any obligation to maintain any interim backups of the same server or other computer.”

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data and email, and backups of electronic data

In re Tyco Int’l, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2000 WL 33654141 (D.N.H. July 27, 2000)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Plaintiffs allowed to serve appropriately-worded subpoenas on certain third parties for limited purpose of giving notice of action and placing them under duty to preserve relevant evidence

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic data of third parties

United States v. Koch Ind., Inc., 197 F.R.D. 463 (N.D. Okl. 1998)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defendant was negligent in failing to determine which computer tapes in tape library contained information relevant to imminent and ongoing litigation and in failing to communicate clear guidelines regarding preservation of information to data processing personnel and tape librarian; no adverse inference, but plaintiff could inform jury about destruction of tapes and impact on plaintiff’s proof

Nature of Case: Action under False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer tapes

William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Defendant’s discovery abuse and destruction of evidence warranted monetary sanctions and default judgment

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Sales and inventory data

Cobell v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 324 (D.D.C. 2002)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Government’s motion for “protective order clarifying that it may produce email in response to discovery requests by producing from paper records of email messages rather than from backup tapes and may overwrite backup tapes in accordance with Departmental directives” denied as inappropriate given history of dispute; plaintiffs awarded attorneys’ fees and costs associated with motion

Nature of Case: Suit against the government alleging mismanagement of Indian trust funds

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Hester v. Bayer Corp., 206 F.R.D. 683 (M.D. Ala. 2001)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: After case was removed to federal court, defendant obtained order vacating state court’s entry of ex parte preservation order requiring defendant to “suspend all routine destruction of documents, including but not limited to, recycling back-up tapes, automated deletion of e-mail, and reformatting hard drives,” compliance with which defendant estimated to cost $50,000/month

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and information in paper or electronic format

Kaufman v. Kinko’s, Inc., 2002 WL 32123851 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel defendant to produce email from backup tapes notwithstanding fact that restoration and retrieval costs may approach $100,000, court stated: “Upon installing a data storage system, it must be assumed that at some point in the future one may need to retrieve the information previously stored. That there may be deficiencies in the retrieval system (or inconvenience and cost associated with the actual retrieval) cannot be sufficient to defeat an otherwise good faith request to examine relevant information . . .”

Nature of Case: Valuation dispute arising as result of two merger agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on monthly backup tapes

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

Madden v. Wyeth, 2003 WL 21443404 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Confident that defense counsel would advise their clients of preservation duty and admonish them of dire consequences of violating same, court denied plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence in absence of some proof that evidence may be lost or destroyed without it

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Discoverable information in paper or electronic format

Tag:Backup Media Recycling