Key Insight: defendants took no steps to save a copy of the footage, and it was overwritten after 30 days elapsed.
Nature of Case: Death by negligence and deliberate indifference
Electronic Data Involved: surveillance camera footage
Keywords: surveillance camera footage, defendant sheriff, anticipation of litigation
Key Insight: Duty of preservation is not enforceable for foreign company investigated by foreign government with no lawsuits filed in USA
Nature of Case: antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records
Keywords: duty of preservation foreign, foreign government investigation preserve
Key Insight: failure to review backup tapes, attorney’s fees
Nature of Case: contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: email, backup tapes
Keywords: destruction of laptop, key employee, prejudice, duty to preserve, adverse inference, retention policy
Key Insight: necessity of preservation order
Nature of Case: misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: laptop, mobile phone, email
Keywords: email providers, deleted emails, significant concerns, threats to preservation, capability to preserve, irreparable harm, ex parte, seizure order, expedited discovery
Key Insight: Court found Defendants? discovery failures, including failing to implement a litigation hold for three years, failing to adequately communicate the hold, and failure to ensure compliance with the litigation hold were grossly negligent and imposed a permissive adverse inference as a sanction; court?s analysis included the admonition that ?the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one party?s demands does not determine the scope of the other party?s obligation to preserve documents?
Nature of Case: Class action civil rights
Electronic Data Involved: ESI: email, text messages, har copy
Key Insight: Where, despite a request from Plaintiff?s counsel to preserve all communications between plaintiff and defendants or their employees AND Defendants? OWN REQUEST that Plaintiff preserve information from her cellular phones, Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant text messages, the court rejected defendants? arguments that ?due to the nature of text message communications and the cellular devices they are stored on?a requirement to preserve text messages from private cellular phones is unduly burdensome and an invasion of privacy? and found that the messages should have been preserved and indicated that a ?spoliation instruction to the jury? would be given at trial but declined to preclude defendants? reliance on plaintiff?s text messages at trial or to order defendants to pay fees and cost associated with the extraction of plaintiffs? text messages from her own phone
Nature of Case: Employment
Electronic Data Involved: Text messages
Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s duty to preserve surveillance footage was triggered by the fact that it knew Defendant was robbed in its hotel, that the police were involved, and that both the police and Defendants ?were using the footage to investigate the incident? (perhaps evidenced by the preservation of different footage at the request of police), the court reasoned that ??mere knowledge of the accident and the possible causes of the accident? is not enough to create a duty to preserve evidence? and found that defendant?s spoliation claim failed
Nature of Case: Claims arising from robbery of hotel guest
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage
Key Insight: Addressing motion for sanctions for the loss of emails in third party custody (GoDaddy), Iron Mountain back ups, and miscellaneous computer files, the Magistrate Judge concluded: 1)that Exeter had a duty preserve reasoning that since 2009 it had been involved in other litigation involving the disclosure of its books, records and financial documents, and that Exeter therefore knew or should have known that the documents ?could be relevant to future litigation? and also found that even if the filing of the 2009 lawsuit (involving different parties) did not trigger the preservation obligation, receipt of a 2009 subpoena should have and that in any event, the duty to preserve arose no later than Exeter?s 2011 bankruptcy filing; 2)that Exeter?s loss of ESI was ?intentional and done in bad faith? absent evidence of any effort to ensure preservation or to contact the third-party providers to inform them of the duty; and 3) that as a result of the intentional loss, a presumption of relevance was warranted and therefore recommended a sanction of an permissive adverse inference at trial; upon Exeter?s objection, District Court adopted the sanctions recommendation entirely and indicated that ?[W]hen there has been intentional destruction of evidence by an officer of a closely held corporation, other officers of the closely held entity may be subject to sanctions, even if they did not have direct control of the evidence at issue.?
Nature of Case: Plaintiff claims that Defendants defrauded Exeter?s creditors by transferring funds from Exeter to themselves, certain trusts, and other entities.
Electronic Data Involved: Email in third-party custody, Iron Mountain backups, miscelaneous ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, although a general duty to preserve arose in 2013, the duty to preserve the internet history of the at-issue employee did not arise until June 2015, which was after the employee had been moved to a different work station
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unfair competition
Electronic Data Involved: Internet history
Key Insight: Where forensic examination revealed that immediately prior to that examination Plaintiff had run ?several ?optimizer? or ?data destruction programs?? that destroyed ?some data? the court found that Plaintiff acted willfully and, addressing Defendant?s request for dismissal, cited newly amended Rule 37(e) for the proposition that the ?Court need impose ?measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice?? and ordered that Plaintiff would be precluded for presenting evidence that Defendants?because of her actions?could not confirm as authentic but reasoned that dismissal was not necessary
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.