Tag:Data Preservation

1
Keathley v. Grange Ins. Co. of Mich., 15-cv-11888, 2017 WL 1173767 (E.D.Mich., Mar. 30, 2017)
2
Zamora v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., Inc. , 3:16-05028-CV-RK, 2017 WL 1362688 (W.D. Mo., Mar. 11, 2017)
3
IBM Corp. v. Naganayagam, No. 15 Civ. 7991 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y., 2017)
4
Yoe v. Crescent Sock (E.D. Tenn. , 2017)
5
U.S. EEOC v. GMRI (S.D. Fla., 2017)
6
Moultrie v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (South Carolina District, Charleston Division, 2017)
7
Catrinar v. Wynnestone Communities Corp., et al., No. 14-11872 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2017)
8
Moody v. CSX Transportation (W.D.N.Y. , 2017)
9
Mitcham v. Americold Logistics, LLC, No. 17-cv-00808-WJM-NYW (D. Colo. Sept. 20, 2017)
10
Barry v. Big M Transportation, No. 1:16-cv-00167-JEO, 2017 WL 3980549 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2017)

Keathley v. Grange Ins. Co. of Mich., 15-cv-11888, 2017 WL 1173767 (E.D.Mich., Mar. 30, 2017)

Key Insight: In this insurance litigation, the district court affirmed an order of the magistrate judge requiring Defendant?s counsel to provide additional information regarding the fate of relevant photographs but, upon review of the declaration submitted, found that it did not adequately address the loss and ordered that a representative of Defendant?s IT personnel be deposed; in concluding that a duty to preserve existed prior to Defendant?s ?final? determination regarding the claim, court reasoned in part that Defendant had asserted attorney client privilege with its outside counsel re: ?coverage issues? prior to its final determination and also noted its decision to require Plaintiff to testify under oath, indicating its skepticism of Plaintiff?s claim, and Defendant?s own request for Plaintiff to submit additional evidence, including any pictures

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Zamora v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., Inc. , 3:16-05028-CV-RK, 2017 WL 1362688 (W.D. Mo., Mar. 11, 2017)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff in an employment litigation failed to preserve a potentially relevant Facebook post, deleted her work phone before returning it and failed to preserve information contained on numerous other phones (e.g., because they were lost, etc.), court found that ?Plaintiff cannot be relied on to disclose all relevant communications? and granted motion to allow access to the mirror image of a phone belonging to a former employee and co-worker of the plaintiff and to allow defendant to subpoena the former employee to produce a second phone for inspection and ordered production of Plaintiff?s current work phone, to be reviewed by a Special Master for potentially relevant communications, with the cost of the Special Master to be split between the parties ; court found request for dismissal or an adverse inference was premature

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from cellular phones, Facebook

IBM Corp. v. Naganayagam, No. 15 Civ. 7991 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: e-mails, electronic document

Keywords: spoliation, adverse inference, intent to deprive, 37(e)(2), prejudice 37(e)(1)

View Case Opinion

Yoe v. Crescent Sock (E.D. Tenn. , 2017)

Key Insight: was there a duty to preserve, were reasonable steps taken to avoid loss of data, can lost data be restored or replaced, was other party prejudiced by loss

Nature of Case: employment law, intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: unknown

Keywords: spoliation, intent to deprive, relevance of data, measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice

View Case Opinion

U.S. EEOC v. GMRI (S.D. Fla., 2017)

Key Insight: whether missing evidence is crucial to movant’s case, whether non-movant had intent to deprive

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: hard copy, email

Keywords: duty to preserve, litigation hold, permissible inference, bad faith

View Case Opinion

Moultrie v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (South Carolina District, Charleston Division, 2017)

Key Insight: Party cannot use screenshots not disclosed in discovery to in support of summary judgment motion alleging electronic signature

Nature of Case: insurance coverage litigation

Electronic Data Involved: archived screenshots

Keywords: electronic signature, affirmative signature, meaningful offer, prepopulated

View Case Opinion

Catrinar v. Wynnestone Communities Corp., et al., No. 14-11872 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff produced two versions of email (both dated before filing). Defendant argued one was fake and an attempt to bolster Plaintiff’s claim. Court deemed that dismissal was too harsh a sanction and denied dismissal sanction request.

Nature of Case: Family Medical Leave Act Violations

Electronic Data Involved: E-Mails

Keywords: Duplicate E-mail; Dismissal Sanction

View Case Opinion

Moody v. CSX Transportation (W.D.N.Y. , 2017)

Key Insight: failure to take reasonable steps to preserve data, prejudice to other party, intent to deprive

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: event recorder data: .dat file

Keywords: reasonable steps, adverse inference, relevance of data, event recorder, black box, laptop crash, prejudice, inferred intent to deprive

View Case Opinion

Mitcham v. Americold Logistics, LLC, No. 17-cv-00808-WJM-NYW (D. Colo. Sept. 20, 2017)

Key Insight: Plaintiff had kept a journal which was scanned and provided. Original Hard Copy was then destroyed. Judge granted motion for additional deposition time, but denied adverse inference instruction.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination; Wrongful Termination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Copy of Scanned Journal

Keywords: Sanctions, Adverse Inference, Scanned Copy, Hard Copy

View Case Opinion

Barry v. Big M Transportation, No. 1:16-cv-00167-JEO, 2017 WL 3980549 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2017)

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to preserve the relevant ESI.

Nature of Case: Motor vehicle accident

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Data/Electronic Control Module (ECM) Vehicle Data Recorder/Black Box and associated data.

Keywords: Spoliation, ECM data

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.