Key Insight: Absent evidence that the failure to preserve prior versions of relevant documents was the result of a ?culpable state of mind,? the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiff?s disposal of personal computer that allegedly crashed where the evidence indicated no bad faith (plaintiff admitted that disposal of the computer was an error due to his own ignorance) and where defendants prejudice was limited in light of other evidence and their ability to explore plaintiff?s truthfulness regarding his assertions that he filed a timely appeal (a copy of which was allegedly lost when the computer crashed and was disposed of) at trial; although court declined to exclude evidence (the requested sanction) it left open the possibility that other sanctions may be imposed ?at a later stage?
Electronic Data Involved: Personal Computer
Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to substantiate his privacy objections and provided the court with no information to weigh against defendant?s stated need for discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the production of plaintiff?s home computer, which contained relevant photographic evidence; trial court did abuse its discretion when it ordered terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s intentional deletion of allegedly private information before producing his computer for inspection where Toyota offered only speculation as justification for such a serious sanction (e.g., ??we will never know? what was destroyed?) and where plaintiff did produce more than 13,000 photographs for inspection; case was remanded for consideration of serious sanctions short of terminating plaintiff?s case
Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Selected contents of home computer, photographs
Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case
Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)
Electronic Data Involved: Photographs
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for Defendant?s deletion of the ESI belonging to a former employee where despite a general duty to preserve, the defendant ?could not have reasonably known? of the potential relevance of the at-issue ESI; where the disposal of ESI was pursuant to a routine deletion policy and other communications from the at-issue employee were produced from other custodians ?which suggests that Cisco did not act with a conscious disregard;? and where the relevance of the documents was tentative and the court was ?hard-pressed? to find that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss
Nature of Case: Claims related to software development and licensing agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI belonging to former employee
Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to establish a litigation hold and resulting loss of relevant data through routine purge was inexcusable and presented exceptional circumstances that removed such conduct from the protections provided by Rule 37(c); as sanction, court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment which turned in part on skill login data, and would give permissive adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed evidence at trial
Nature of Case: Sex discrimination claims
Electronic Data Involved: Skill login data
Key Insight: Where defendants were dilatory in participating in discovery and did not begin searching for ESI until plaintiff was on the brink of filing his second motion to compel, district court affirmed magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for default judgment be denied because there was no showing of bad faith on the part of defendants and prejudice to plaintiff could be alleviated through imposition of less drastic sanctions, such as allowing plaintiff to re-depose certain witnesses at defense expense, allowing plaintiff to exceed the deposition limit, and awarding plaintiff reasonable expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of the motion
Nature of Case: Race discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual
Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: For spoliation addressed in E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), court awarded DuPont attorneys? fees in the amount of $2,428,733.90 and costs in the amount of $2,068,313.60; costs/expenses included those paid to three outside vendors, including for forensic analysis services and for providing contract attorneys to review and analyze documents
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of business information, conspiracy, etc.
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.