Data Preservation – Page 23 – Electronic Discovery Law

Okada v. Whitehead, No. SACV 15-01449-JLS (KESx), 2016 WL 9448484 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant explained that certain emails were not produced because he lost access to the account which subsequently expired and thus the emails were not in his possession custody or control, the court concluded that the duty to preserve was triggered prior to the expiration of the account by the filing of a separate lawsuit involving the same at-issue property in which the parties to this case were codefendants and explained in footnote that it could locate no case law limiting the duty to preserve to an adversary as opposed to all parties to litigation and noted that the duty to preserve ?may carry over to subsequent lawsuits involving the same subject matter?; finding the spoliation was prejudicial but not intentional, the court ordered the jury be informed of the failure to preserve, but not instructed to presume anything about the content of the emails

Nature of Case: Breach of Settlement Agreement

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Archer v. York City Sch. Dist., No. 1:13-cv-2826, 2016 WL 7451562 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs alleged spoliation resulting from school district?s deletion of former employee?s email account in accordance with its policy and more than 11 months before a complaint was filed, the court concluded that Plaintiffs presented ?no factual basis? in support of their allegations of intentional destruction of evidence favorable to Plaintiffs and declined to find that the school district?s decision not to renew the at-issue school?s charter was sufficient to trigger a duty to preserve such that the deletion would constitute spoliation (?Plaintiffs? argument that by the simple act of doing their jobs, Defendants should have been on notice of litigation that would not commence until nearly a full year later does not create knowledge that litigation is ?pending or probable.?)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from non-renewal of charter school’s charter

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s email account

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

O?Berry v. Turner, Nos. 7-15-CV-00064-HL, 7:15:CV-00075-HL, 2016 WL 1700403 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where custodian printed single paper copy of relevant driver?s log and PeopleNet data to be maintained in the usual course of business, did nothing more upon receipt of a request for preservation and ultimately misplaced the envelope in which the information was maintained despite claiming to have done ?everything in his power to preserve evidence,? the court found that Defendant filed to take reasonable steps to preserve the data and acted with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the information in litigation, reasoning that it was ?simply irresponsible? to print a single paper copy for preservation and noting Defendant?s lack of a document preservation policy and the failure of counsel to contact the at-issue custodian for approximately two and one half years following receipt of the request to preserve, among other things: ?All of these facts, when considered together, lead the Court to conclude that the loss of the at-issue ESI was beyond the result of mere negligence. Such irresponsible and shiftless behavior can only lead to one conclusion?that ADM and Archer Daniel Midlands Company acted with the intent to deprive ??

Nature of Case: Automobile accident

Electronic Data Involved: Driver’s log, PeopleNet data

Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH), 2016 WL 7407707 (D. Conn. Dec. 22, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and related responses to a survey regarding recipients? computer use where, despite the absence of specific evidence of spoliation or a pending spoliation motion, the delayed (9-11 months) and rolling issuance of litigation holds was described by the court as ?leisurely, to an extent making it impossible to dismiss as frivolous [Plaintiff?s] suggestion that she might move for a spoliation sanction? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff was ?entitled to discovery in these areas, in order to discern the merit or lack of merit of a formal claim for spoliation claim? [sic]; regarding assertions that the hold notices were privileged, the court reasoned that ?the predominant purpose of the communication was to give recipients forceful instructions about what they must do, rather than advice about what they might do?; court?s analysis included identification of six ?decisive questions? relevant to ?spoliation cases involving litigation hold notices? including, when the duty to preserve arose, whether litigation holds were issued, when they were issued, what they said, how recipients responded and what further action was taken beyond the litigation holds to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation Hold notices and survey to recipients regarding computer use

Prezio Health, Inc. v. John Schenk & Spectrum Surgical Instruments, Inc., No. 3:13 CV 1463 (WWE), 2016 WL 111406 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where individual Defendant informed his family that litigation related emails were to be preserved, but where at least three of eight ordered to be produced were lost, perhaps when Defendant?s wife transferred her emails to a new App, court found Defendant?s effort was ?grossly deficient? noting that defense counsel and Defendant had failed to impress upon the family the significance of the emails; addressing question of an appropriate sanction, Court cited Residential Funding Corp, 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), and ordered a ?permissive adverse inference? and payment of Plaintiff?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred in pursuing the issue

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from account used by multiple family members

Bruner v. Amer. Honda Motor Corp., No. 1:15-00499-N, 2016 WL 2757401 (S.D. Ala. May 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where counsel for defendant indicated that relevant emails were not available because they were no longer retained in accordance with a document retention policy requiring the maintenance of emails for only 30 days and where no litigation hold was in place because Defendant was relying on its existing document retention policy because a litigation hold would be overly burdensome, court reasoned that ?the deletion of some responsive emails does not absolve Defendant of its obligation to thoroughly search for still-extant ESI? and ordered production of ?full and adequate responses to discovery? and also ordered Defendant to implement a litigation hold to preclude potential deletion of relevant information

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Virtual Studios, Inc. v. Stanton Carpet, Corp., No. 4:15-CV-0070, 2016 WL 5339601 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where the court acknowledged that after a duty to preserve arose in 2009 Plaintiff ?did little, if anything, to prevent the loss of emails,? including failing to instruct employees to retain relevant documents and emails and failing to backup emails stored on employees individual hard drives, but where Defendant failed to establish bad faith or an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose an adverse inference or other serious sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2) but, upon finding that the loss of emails was prejudicial to Defendant (where the parties offered competing narratives regarding whether Defendant was informed regarding Plaintiff?s limitations on the use of its images), ordered that the defendant ?may introduce evidence concerning the loss of the e-mails and may make an argument to the jury concerning the effect of the loss of the e-mails?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Core Labs. LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs., LLC, No. CIV-11-1157-M, 2016 WL 879324 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where emails were lost in Defendant?s transition from one service provider to another, despite efforts to preserve, the court found that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss and found that a presumptive adverse inference was appropriate but declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s deletion of ?personal? files prior to production of a hard drive for forensic analysis where the court found such deletion ?reasonable? and also declined to impose sanctions for the wiping of an at-issue computer where the court found no bad faith in light of the alleged ?computer problems? that the wipe was intended to address and Defendant?s claim that ?anything that needed to be kept? was exported first; notably court?s analysis included specific recognition of newly amended Rule 37(e) but also recognized a common law standard requiring only prejudice to impose a spoliation sanction

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, computer files, contents of hard drive

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

Tag:Data Preservation