Data Preservation – Page 40 – Electronic Discovery Law

Abdulahi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1393 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was fired for failure to lock a gate?which he disputed?during the pendency of separate EEOC investigations into plaintiff?s charges of discrimination and where the at-issue manager claimed to have viewed footage confirming the gate was unlocked but failed to preserve it, the court determined that Defendant was under a duty to preserve (?due to an ongoing EEOC investigation during the applicable time period, Wal-Mart?s own investigation into the alleged employee misconduct including a review of the video footage, and litigation being reasonably foreseeable?), that plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss because neither the at-issue manager?s testimony or emails were equivalents for the video, and that plaintiff showed ?more than mere negligence? in the destruction, the court ordered an adverse inference creating a presumption that ?Wal-Mart?s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual and that retaliation was the but-for cause of Plaintiff?s termination? and awarded attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Savage v. City of Lewisburg, No. 1:10?0120, 2014 WL 6827329 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2014 )

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court said that where Defendant was under a duty to preserve audio recordings and should have taken steps to prevent their destruction; and where Defendant refused to produce payroll and promotion data ordered by the court; and where Defendant had not produced documents ordered by the court; Plaintiff would be permitted to argue adverse inferences to the jury and file an affidavit of reasonable costs and attorneys? fees in bringing its sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings, payroll and promotion data, documents

Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express Inc., No. CV 13-02092 BRO (PLAx), 2014 WL 12560879 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and possible evidence preclusion (TBD after recovery efforts were exhausted), where Defendant failed to preserve its employees? text messages, including highly relevant text messages, by failing to implement a litigation hold and where despite Defendant?s attempts to recover the deleted information, the court deemed it ?very unlikely? that such efforts would result in full production; court also reasoned that even if all missing documents were produced, Plaintiffs would still be prejudiced in light of less time to review the evidence and prepare for trial

Nature of Case: Class action employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages, ESI

Robinson v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS, 2014 WL 3845775 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: A clearly exasperated court described the parties’ discovery efforts to date, highlighted the inconsistencies/incompleteness in response, “as well as the complete cacophony of the San Joaquin County e-mail systems and retrieval,” and issued one final, specific order to be followed by defendant lest serious sanctions issue; among other things, court ordered defendant to perform computer-by-computer search for all current employees in order that any emails relating to plaintiff’s discrimination claims or job performance from 2007 to present may be produced, acknowledging that substantial work would be required for compliance but that judge was “not responsible for the County’s email systems which apparently have been designed for individual control and with no concern for litigation responsibilities”

Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2327, 2014 WL 439785 (S.D. W. Va. Feb 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge granted plaintiffs’ request for reasonable costs incurred in bringing the motion as plaintiffs demonstrated that Ethicon’s negligent loss of relevant evidence unduly complicated plaintiffs’ discovery and case preparation and unnecessarily increased the costs of litigation, but denied request for more serious spoliation sanctions since loss of evidence was not willful or deliberate and plaintiffs could not show irreparable prejudice; magistrate recommended that district judge allow plaintiffs the opportunity to introduce evidence regarding Ethicon’s loss of relevant documents on a case-by-case basis, and when appropriate, tender an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Product liability

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Black Diamond Mining Co. v. Genser, No. 12-125-ART, 2014 WL 3611329 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court addressed motion for sanctions and found that accused spoliators had acted intentionally and/or negligently, but not in bad faith; court found that sanctions were ?unwarranted? for the negligent loss of certain email attachments because of defendant?s failure to ?access documents in an archive while gathering the original emails?- even despite finding that defendant acted with a ?culpable state of mind? – where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the attachments? relevance (court noted that defendant did not ?actively delete the attachments? but rather its agents ?forgot to take steps to preserve the documents before they were deleted from the archive?); for individual actors? negligent and intentional failures to preserve ESI and hard copy documents, the court found that the ?test of relevance [was] satisfied? and imposed a permissive adverse inference, but declined to order reimbursement of the Trustee?s fees or the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments, ESI, hard copy

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., No. 12-cv-11500, 2015 WL 1029540 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found an individual defendant had control over deleted emails in an account located on a Comcast server and that the deletion of the emails was not ?merely coincidental to the winding-down of the business operations? of Defendant but rather was intentional, ?to prevent the discovery of the evidence therein?; reasoning that Plaintiff was not prevent from proving its most crucial allegations, the court declined to impose ?case-terminating? sanctions, but did order monetary sanctions against the individual defendant who controlled the emails and that Defendants? would bear the cost of a forensic search of their computers; notably, the inspection would apply to all defendants? computers, despite the court?s finding that one individual defendant had no control over the deleted emails and could not be held responsible for the deletion where the court explained (in footnote) that the non-spoliating defendant?s email account (used by his clinic) was registered to the spoliating defendant and where the non-spoliating defendant testified that he had not conducted a proper search of his computers

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on third party (Cloud) server

Stewart v. Nucor Corp., No. 3:13-cv-0057-KGB, 2014 WL 12611316 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs answer, enter default judgement and give an adverse inference jury instruction as sanctions for alleged spoliation of video footage. The court held that destruction of the footage was prejudicial to Plaintiff, being the only recording of the accident. Defendant did not have an official retention policy and indicated the video at issue was overwritten ?within weeks of the accident through routine system operation.? However the court did not find Defendant acted in bad faith, and thus denied with prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and enter default judgement. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s request to strike the affirmative defense asserting Plaintiff?s fault as well as the request to prohibit Defendant from mentioning the tape/contents/employee statements regarding the tape during trial. Plaintiff may file a motion in limine to further pursue exclusion of evidence.

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Tag:Data Preservation