Key Insight: whether defendants acted with prejudice in not preserving “loop type system” video footage; whether spoliation sanctions apply for destroyed evidence
Nature of Case: Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force (cruel and unusual punishment)
Electronic Data Involved: medical records
Keywords: spoliation, preserve, prejudice, intent, bad faith, loop type system
Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable
Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings
Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering
Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering
Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions, despite Defendant?s failure to issue a litigation hold, where Plaintiff could not show that evidence was actually lost or destroyed and where, although the court acknowledged that Defendant?s record keeping appeared ?slipshod,? Plaintiff could not show bad faith (?in no case in the Third Circuit cited by Plaintiff, or found by this Court, has a court granted a spoliation inference on nothing more than a failure to institute a litigation hold?)
Nature of Case: [A]lleged constitutional violations arising out of the building permit approval process
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff? spoliation of financial information forced experts to rely upon ?unverified secondhand data,? court found the reports ?exhibit[ed] neither sufficient reliability nor the requisite fit required for admission in federal practice? and granted Defendant?s motion to exclude
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, promissory estoppel
Electronic Data Involved: Financial information (ESI, hard copy)
Key Insight: Plaintiffs in this collective action sought spoliation sanctions for Defendants? failure to produce certain relevant evidence, including payroll records, W-2s, cashier sheets, etc. Defendants objected to the motion on the grounds that ?all of their books, records and computers were seized? pursuant to the court?s order in a different case and that there was no time to make any copies or back ups. Accordingly, the court reasoned that Defendants had not destroyed their records and found that ?[u]nder the specific circumstances of this case ? Defendants did not have an obligation to copy their books and records before complying with the court?s order.? Plaintiffs? motion for sanctions was denied.
Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act
Electronic Data Involved: Employment records (payroll, W-2s etc.)
Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI
Key Insight: Reasoning that the ?issues of whether the alleged computer file ever existed and, if it did, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to the anticipated litigation, and whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the computer file rests on credibility determinations that this Court is not in a position make at this stage? and noting the ?disputed facts at issue,? the court indicated its inclination to ?to provide the jury with appropriate guidelines and instructions so that they, after hearing all of the evidence, can resolve any credibility questions and make a determination, first, as to whether the alleged computer file even existed on Plaintiff?s computer, whether and when Quintiles should have reasonably known that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigations, and, if so, whether Quintiles willfully lost or destroyed the file? and invited the parties to submit proposed jury instructions
Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs intentionally destroyed all paper and electronic copies of relevant financial information despite a duty to preserve citing the burden of storage, the court found that the destruction was in bad faith, but that the prejudice was minimal where other sources of evidence provided sufficient information to support Defendant?s defenses and thus ordered an adverse inference at trial; where one plaintiff was a Certified Public Accountant, court considered her professional capacity when considering the willfulness of the destruction, noting that it ?strains credulity? that an accountant would throw away all financial documents because of ?storage space?
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (financial data)
Key Insight: Finding plaintiff responsible for his prior counsel?s deficient Facebook production, saying he ?voluntarily chose his prior counsel and cannot avoid the consequences for his attorney?s discovery failures? and also responsible for his current counsel?s deficient Twitter production, district court granted Motion for Sanctions filed by defendants in part and ordered plaintiff to produce the entirety of his Twitter profile with redactions for privilege and relevance and to produce a log for any social networking information withheld and to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney?s fees associate with the discovery dispute.
Nature of Case: Civil Rights
Electronic Data Involved: Social media postings
Key Insight: Where defendants downloaded some, but not all available video within three days of incident and video-recording system programmed by third-party vendor automatically overwrote old video after thirty days, court found that defendants did not destroy evidence in bad faith and plaintiff was not extremely prejudiced and, therefore, not entitled to spoliation sanctions. Court also reviewed the record related to missing documents and said that defendants had diligently searched for the documents and concluded, ?Apparently, Defendants do not have these documents, and there is no evidence of bad faith or spoliation of evidence. Because Defendants are only required to produce what they have, the Court cannot compel Defendants to produce these documents.?
Nature of Case: Wrongful Death
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance Video; Documents
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.