Backup Tapes – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5597547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Mailhoit v. Home Depot USA, No. CV 11-03892 DOC (SSx), 2012 WL 12884128 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for an order precluding discovery of disaster recovery backup tapes, court considered the factors laid out in Rule 26(b)(2)(B)?s Committee Note (2006) and relevant case law and concluded that Defendant met its burden to establish inaccessibility where restoration and production would be ?extraordinarily expensive, both in restoration costs and attorney time? and that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause to compel production, citing as most important the failure to substantiate the claim that the emails would be important or useful to her case; court rejected argument that sampling must be conducted before a cost-benefit analysis could be undertaken by the court

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster Recovery Backup Tapes

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, No. 10-2696 STA/TMP, 2012 WL 4361449 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Upon Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, court recognized two relevant trigger dates, the second of which expanded the initial scope of preservation, and found that Defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve relevant emails but declined to impose an adverse inference and instead ordered Defendant to bear the cost of restoring 33 backup tapes to determine if relevant information was contained thereon

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Danny Lynn Elec. V. Veolia Es Solid Waste, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 WL 786843 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC), 2012 WL 2375490 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over 24 40-year old magnetic tapes, 6 of which defendants had attempted to restore with only partial success (contents of 2 of the 6 tapes were recovered), the court found the information on the tapes to be not reasonably accessible in light of the significant but only partially successful recovery efforts but, recognizing the potential relevance of the contents, ordered that plaintiff would be allowed to attempt recovery (using outside vendors with sufficient security clearance) at their own expense and that if recovery was successful, the court would consider a cost-shifting motion

Electronic Data Involved: 40-year old magnetic tapes

Margolis v. Dial Corp., No. 12-CV-0288-JLS (WVG), 2012 WL 2588704 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? request for a preservation order as to voicemail and instant messages where defendants had already sent litigation hold notices requiring preservation such that Plaintiffs? request was moot; Court further declined to enter preservation order as to backup tapes where defendants established that their preservation would impose a significant burden and that the contents were likely duplicative and where the court found that the backup tapes did not fall within the exception identified in Zubulake v UBS Warburg, 220 FRD 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail, instant messages, backup tapes

Tag:Backup Tapes