Data Preservation – Page 35 – Electronic Discovery Law

Riley v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08123-PCT-JAT, 2014 WL 641632 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied five-part test to deny plaintiff’s motion for claim-dispositive sanctions but would allow reasonable attorneys’ fees and adverse inference instruction where city failed to suspend its 45-day retention policy for city employee email and defendant mayor apparently destroyed or failed to preserve relevant email in his private Gmail account, as numerous emails on which the mayor or his assistant were senders or recipients were discovered from third party sources, e.g., Google, Inc., but none were included in defendants’ production

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Pac. Packaging Prods., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV200904320, 2014 WL 2766735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After ten days of hearings on Plaintiff?s Emergency Motion for Judgment on All Claims Based upon Defendants? Fraud Upon the Court, court found that defendants violated preservation order and deliberately ignored preliminary injunction requiring defendants to turn over all written or digital materials taken from or generated by plaintiff, or derived in whole or in part from documents generated by plaintiff, that contain customer lists, pricing information or similar information, and not to retain copies of such materials, and that defendants spoliated evidence and committed a fraud upon the court; appropriate sanction was the entry of default against defendants, dismissal of the defendants? counterclaims, and an order requiring defendants to compensate plaintiff for attorneys? fees and costs incurred in litigating the motion; parties to submit memoranda describing their views regarding the extent of the default established and the future course of the litigation

Nature of Case: Distributer sued former employees who formed competing company

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops, hard drives and other electronic storage devices

Samuel v. United Corp., No. ST-12-CV-457, 2014 WL 2608839 (V.I. Super. Ct. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to allow an adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant’s alleged destruction of critical video footage that preceded her fall, and reiterated prior guidance from the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands: “[U]pon reasonably foreseeable notice that evidence may be relevant to discovery, it is certainly not within the discretion of a store manager [or security officer] to determine what portion of the available recorded surveillance footage is relevant to anticipated litigation, even where surveillance video does not clearly show the cause of the accident”; court commented that routinely preserving only a minute and a half of footage prior to an accident teeters on the edge of being unreasonable, and recommended preservation of at least five minutes of surveillance footage of the area prior to the accident

Nature of Case: Slip-and-fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court erred in granting remarkable discovery sanctions of procedural “death penalty” together with over $1 million in sanctions against plaintiffs, as destroyed evidence did not go to heart of case, but was, instead, impeachment evidence; record did not reflect the required consideration by trial court of appropriate lesser sanctions or an explanation of why case was exceptional and lesser sanctions would be inadequate; and court wrongly awarded attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs for the entire case rather than those related only to the sanctionable conduct

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ogandzhanova, No. CV-12-00372-PHX-GMS, 2014 WL 2616523 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant had testified regarding frequent use of computers but the two computers she produced after being ordered by the court to do so showed very little activity, court found that defendant had willfully failed to comply with court’s order to identify and provide the computers she used during the relevant time period; court further found that defendant failed to produce relevant documents within her control and applied five-factor test to impose sanctions in the form of a permissive adverse inference instruction and payment of plaintiff?s attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Disability insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

EEOC v. Suntrust Bank, No. 8:12-cv-1325-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 1364982 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice EEOC?s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, indicating it may consider this ruling at a later date if presented with further evidence tending to show bad faith conduct by SunTrust; court would permit the EEOC to introduce evidence at trial concerning SunTrust?s video surveillance system, SunTrust?s policies relating to use and preservation of video surveillance footage, and SunTrust?s failure to preserve video footage at issue, where Suntrust isolated and carefully reviewed tapes to investigate (and partly validate) one plaintiff?s claims, but then put that same footage back into circulation to be taped over and did not retain or preserve the footage

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage from bank’s security cameras

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Tag:Data Preservation