Data Preservation – Page 29 – Electronic Discovery Law

Malibu Media v. Ricupero, No. 2:14?cv?821 2015, 2015 WL 4273463 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

AJ Holding Grp. v. IP Holdings, 129 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

F & J Samame, Inc. v. Arco Iris Ice Cream, SA?13?CV?365?XR, 2015 WL 4068575 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for attorneys? fees, where defendant had used software to wipe a PC and a laptop, deleting and overwriting more than 62,000 files, and violated a court order, and stalled the discovery process. Court denied in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, however, instead granting leave for new depositions, saying that while its order ?does not address the loss of evidence that may establish willful infringement,? the alleged infringing materials ?are available for the jury to assess whether infringement has incurred or not.?

Nature of Case: Trade dress and Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and ESI on hard drive

H.M. Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12cv28840-BAS-MDD, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For multiple discovery violations by Defendant and counsel, including improper certification of discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(g), failure to issue a litigation hold or appropriately supervise discovery, and intentional deletion of responsive materials and delayed production, the court imposed multiple discovery sanctions, including attorneys? fees and costs, issue sanctions, and an adverse inference; notably, the court indicated sanctions would have been imposed under New Rule 37(e), because the court found that the at-issue ESI was lost with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the information?s use in the litigation; Update: Compensatory sanctions vacated by District Court upon determination that parties? settlement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions (—F.Supp.3d—, 2016 WL 1267385 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016))

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, trade libel, unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bruno v. Bozutto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-874, 2015 WL 7294464 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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)

Evans v. Quintiles Transnational Corp., No. 4:13-cv-00987-RBH, 2015 WL 9455580 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 2015 WL 1090180 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for temporary restraining order which requested restrictions on defendant?s assets, and orders prohibiting destruction of evidence, expediting discovery, allowing plaintiff access to defendant?s email and social media accounts, and for the return of a laptop because the court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. In asserting it would suffer irreparable harm, plaintiff argued defendant had demonstrated she would not observe her obligation to preserve evidence, but provided no evidence in support of this claim. Stating that ?suspicions are not a proper ground for injunctive relief,? the Court noted that counsel for each defendant were ?expected to advise their clients of their duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence and the serious consequences for failing to do so,? but denied further relief.

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, social media, laptop

In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP, 2015 WL 10891632 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court held that ?litigation/preservation holds and memoranda (at least in this case) issued by a corporate party to its employees for purpose of giving instruction and direction concerning documents and records to be preserved by those employees, even where that instruction arises from legal advice from counsel, are not shielded by the attorney-client privilege? and ordered production of certain litigation holds, including sections identifying the documents to be preserved, characterizing the litigation holds as ?managerial? and without the protection of attorney-client or work product privileges

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation holds (i.e., legal holds, record holds)

Cableview Commc?ns of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Se., LLC, 3:13-cv-306-J-34JRK, 2015 WL 12838175 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Plaintiff sought Defendant?s tax returns and document retention policies. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant in 2004 to provide cable television installation services. In 2010 Defendant tendered a workplace injury claim to Plaintiff for indemnification. Plaintiff?s insurance carrier denied coverage and the claim was left unpaid. In 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was being acquired by another company. One day before the closing of the transaction, Defendant contacted the acquiring company and made repayment for the workplace injury claim ?a condition to assent to assignment? of the agreement. Plaintiff alleged tortious interference and sought Defendant?s tax returns to demonstrate its ability to pay punitive damages. Plaintiff further alleged spoliation claiming there were missing emails and sought documents regarding Defendant?s document retention policies. The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion holding that the request for punitive damages cannot form the basis for financial worth discovery since Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing of tortious interference. Further, there was no spoliation given that Defendant located and produced the emails in question and so Defendant?s document retention policies were not relevant.

Nature of Case: Workplace injury claim

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Burnett v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?14207, 2015 WL 1650439 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?20976, 2015 WL 1650447 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?06529, 2015 WL 1650428 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Tag:Data Preservation