Backup Tapes – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Navajo Nation v. United States, —Fed. Cl.—, 2012 WL 5398792 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: To settle disagreement between the parties, court entered discovery order addressing several issues including format of production, categories of ESI presumptively exempt from discovery absent a showing of good cause, and inadvertent production, among others

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 770 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (N.D. Ga. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Providing significant analysis of the issue of spoliation, court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for defendant?s alleged failure to adequately preserve evidence where government?s investigation did not trigger a duty to preserve evidence as to the class action plaintiffs in this case and thus, no duty to preserve existed for purposes of the spoliation analysis; court also found that even where duty to preserve existed, plaintiffs also failed to establish prejudice resulting from the alleged failure to preserve and that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to prevent the loss of ESI pursuant to defendant?s usual document retention policies and the automatic functions of its server

Nature of Case: Class action related to alleged collusion in implementation baggage fees

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, 2011 WL 579039 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found backup tapes not reasonably accessible in light of the cost of restoration, review and production but granted plaintiff?s motion to compel where plaintiff?s showed ?good cause for some discovery? and held the motion in abeyance until further argument on cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Madere v. Compass Bank, No. A-10-CV-812 LY, 2011 WL 5155643 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes

Gentex Corp. v. Sutter, No. 3:07-CV-1269, 2011 WL 5040893 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s employees? intentional spoliation, including use of scrubbing software and destruction of CD-ROMS, court imposed default judgment against the employees but declined to impose sanctions on defendant corporation where questions of fact remained as to whether it engaged in spoliation

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and PA Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Escamilla v. SMS Holdings Corp., No. 09-2120 ADM/JSM, 2011 WL 5025254 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court affirmed Magistrate Judge?s order requiring defendant to submit his computers for forensic examination, at his own expense, where defendant reinstalled an operating system less than two weeks after plaintiff filed a motion to compel and where, because of the loss of data, plaintiff was therefore prejudiced to an unknown extent?bad faith was not required for such an order; court affirmed order requiring corporate defendant to search hard drives of key employees, the image of a file and print server, and backup tapes dating back five years where the search was not overly broad and where defendant did not establish undue burden?despite its exorbitant estimate regarding backup tapes?in light of the large disparity between estimates from both parties, and where the court noted that much of the costs could have been avoided had SMS fulfilled its preservation duties and not converted to a less accessible format

Nature of Case: Employment litigation – sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317 BRW/JTR, 2011 WL 2115546 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing discovery issues ?looming on the horizon? court indicated that there appeared to be no basis to require defendant to forensically image at-issue hard drives and, addressing whether defendant would be required to restore and review backup tapes which it claimed could cost $84,854,704. 90 (a number the court called ?absurdly high? on its face), found that it would be difficult for plaintiff to meet the seven factor test for good cause and that defendant had sufficiently objected to plaintiff?s request such that arguments that the backup tapes were not reasonably accessible had not been waived

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, backup tapes

Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to communicate plaintiff?s preservation request and failure to implement a litigation hold resulted in the destruction of data, court ordered adverse inference related to the destruction of a particular category of evidence but delayed the imposition of sanctions for the destruction of email where efforts to retrieve those emails from backup systems were ongoing and ordered defendant to submit an explanation of their retrieval efforts with specific topics to be addressed

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hardcopy evidence

Tag:Backup Tapes