Data Preservation – Page 22 – Electronic Discovery Law

Glob. Materials Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co. Ltd., No. 12 CV 1851, 2016 WL 4765689 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the court concluded that Defendants deliberately failed to preserve evidence ?in order to prevent [Plaintiff] from obtaining the evidence and using it against defendants in litigation? (e.g., by liquidating computers and delaying accessing an email account until emails were deleted by the provider) and lied to the court and to the plaintiff (?Defendants were not merely dilatory or misleading in their litigation tactics; they were affirmatively deceitful?), the court reasoned that while an adverse inference or prohibition on introducing certain evidence may ?level the playing field? it would not sufficiently punish Defendants for their dishonesty, and therefore imposed default judgment as to liability (damages remained to be proven); court?s analysis noted that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) a specific finding of prejudice is not required where the finding of intent supports the inference that the missing information was unfavorable to the party who destroyed it

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, emails

Thurmond v Bowman, No. 14-CV-6465W, 2016 WL 1295957 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendants sought spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff?s alleged deletion of social media postings that Defense counsel claimed had disappeared from the relevant account, the evidence indicated that the majority of those posts were merely hidden as the result of Plaintiff?s modification of her security settings and the court noted that the three posts that were missing ?did not seem relevant? and concluded that spoliation sanctions were not warranted; court?s analysis included disagreement with the argument that ?the entirety of a plaintiff?s social media account is per se relevant to any claim for emotional distress damages,? and concluded that the contention that sanctions were warranted for the deletion of any Facebook post swept ?far too broadly?

Nature of Case: Housing discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: facebook (social media / social network)

Sweltic Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr, Inc. v. Foot Levelers, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-236, 2016 WL 1657922 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where third party refused to preserve potentially relevant evidence absent a court order and maintained a retention policy that would result in the automatic deletion of the at-issue information, court granted in part Plaintiff?s motion to compel preservation (finding that the requested scope of preservation appeared overly broad) but declined to compel forensic imaging

Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Fax transmission reports and other ESI identifying fax numbers that received advertisements

Boyington v Percheron Field Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-90, 2016 WL 6068813 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices

Orologio of Short Hills Inc. v Swatch Grp. (U.S.) Inc., 653 Fed. Appx. 134 (3rd Cir. 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court affirmed District Court?s denial of Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and issue sanctions on alleged spoliation, absent a finding that the hard-copy tapes at issue were destroyed in bad faith. The evidence in the record indicated the tapes were destroyed for the sole reason that the Defendant did not wish to pay a storage fee for the tapes; there was no reference to the litigation in the emails regarding the destruction.

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Robinson Patman Act and NJ Franchise Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard-copy tapes containing “tagged television commercials”

Cohn v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-9369, 2016 WL 7157358 (N.D. Ill. Dec 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant sought production of Plaintiff?s emails, imposition of spoliation sanctions, and an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce responsive documents from her Gmail and LinkedIn account, but failed to do so (later third party productions contained emails sent from her Gmail account). Plaintiff admitted she deleted emails from her Gmail account at various times, and evidence showed she instructed a subordinate to start using their personal email addresses and to delete various emails. The court found (i) a duty to preserve existed as of at least November 30, 2013, (ii) that Plaintiff breached that duty when she deleted emails, and (iii) there was a strong inference that the emails would have been unfavorable to Plaintiff because (iv) she deleted the emails in bad faith (to admittedly ?hide? the information). The court denied Defendant?s motion for equitable relief, but allowed Defendant?s alternate request that Plaintiff must provide full access to her Gmail account (details to be addressed in a meet-and-confer).

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails (gmail)

Muhammad v. Mathena, No. 7:14cv00529, 2016 WL 8116155 (W.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Prison employees? failure to preserve surveillance footage of inmate altercation despite notice of the obligation to do so was negligent; negligence imputed to other employees named as Defendants in Eighth Amendment claim where, despite the lack of a conventional agency relationship, the negligent/spoliating non-parties were not merely ?disinterested third parties? but rather were employees of the institution(s) responsible for preserving evidence in prisoner litigation and where requiring a conventional agency relationship would ?present a dilemma in the context of prison litigation .. where responsibility for preserving evidence may be spread out among multiple officials within an institute and where the institutions themselves are typically immune from suit?; as sanction, court forbade Defendants from putting on evidence related to Plaintiff?s disciplinary charges and conviction or the actual contents of the video and indicated it would instruct the jury that Plaintiff had requested the footage be preserved and it was not and that ?the jurors should not assume that the lack of corroborating objective evidence? undermined Plaintiff?s ?version of events surrounding the fight?

Nature of Case: Pro se Eighth Amendment Claims (prison litigation)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Garcia v. City of Farmington, No. Civ. 12-383 JCH/SCY, 2016 WL 7438045 (D. N.M. Jul. 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiff created audio recordings during her employment with Defendant, transcribing some of them and later deleting recordings she felt to be insignificant. Plaintiff also claimed her computer ?crashed? in 2011 or 2012 and that caused her to lose material (this issue not raised at previous deposition). After the close of trial, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion for Adverse Spoliation Inference and to Strike Testimony. The court found Plaintiff had a duty to preserve because she made the recordings after she filed a grievance and EEOC charge. Plaintiff admitted that the deleted recordings did not ?capture unfair and discriminatory treatment of her,? which the court found to ?cure any prejudice Defendant may have suffered.? The court found that Plaintiff?s actions ?were intentional and more than merely negligent, but she did not act with a sinister intent,? and that Plaintiff did not understand she needed to preserve all the recordings. The court will consider Defendant?s evidence of Plaintiffs spoliation when it weighs the evidence presented at trial, but otherwise denied Defendant?s request to impose sanctions.

Nature of Case: Renewed Motion for Adverse Spoliation Inference and to Strike Testimony, on underlying case of discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Delphi Commc?ns. Inc. v. Advanced Computing Techs. Inc., No. A15A1655, 2016 WL 1176998 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld trial court?s decision to strike defendants? answer and enter default judgment (as to one claim) as a spoliation sanction for Defendants? failure to preserve an image of their hard drives

Nature of Case: Claims against former employees and thier employer alleging copying of Plaintiff’s software products and solicitation of Plaintiff’s customers without consent

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Moore v. Lowe?s Home Centers, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01459 RJB, 2016 WL 3458353 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: No sanctions imposed for Defendant?s deletion of Plaintiff?s email in accordance with Defendant?s email retention policy following her termination where Plaintiff?s emails to HR and management ?did not raise ?potential claims? but rather raise Plaintiff?s concerns about workplace gossip and challenging relationships? and where other ?low-level employees? general awareness that Plaintiff was rumored to pursue litigation? did not result in a duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails of departed/terminated employee

Tag:Data Preservation