Data Preservation – Page 48 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dent v. Siegelbaum, No. DKC 08-0886, 2012 WL 718835 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court did not err in denying plaintiff?s request for a spoliation instruction with respect to digital pictures taken of plaintiff which were deleted when a defendant (a police officer) connected the camera to his computer for uploading where there was no evidence ? to prove, or even suggest? that the officer intended to destroy the pictures and where ?a culpable state of mind? was a necessary element to be proven by a party seeking such sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photos

Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, No. 10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2012 WL 777500 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant?s responses to discovery were incomplete, court ordered defendant to ?proceed with the forensic search of their computer systems using protocols agreed upon by the parties? but declined to compel defendant to bear the cost of the examination until final costs were known; defendant was also ordered to institute a litigation hold where defendant?s deposition testimony established that none had previously been issued

Nature of Case: Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Vanliner Ins. Co. v. ABF Freight Syst., Inc., No. 5:11-cv-122-Oc-10TBS, 2012 WL 750743 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that the alleged spoliator had no notice of the potential relevance of the allegedly spoliated data and that the information?namely maintenance records?was available elsewhere, court concluded that he moving party failed to establish that the data at issue was ?crucial? to its case and denied motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Engine related data from Electronic Control Module (e.g., the speed of the tractor/trailer, the rotation of RPMs of the engine)

Firestone v. Hawker Beechcraft Int. Serv. Co., No. 10-1404-JWL, 2012 WL 899270 (D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions resulting from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of a number of USB devices allegedly attached to plaintiff?s work laptop where defendant failed to establish: 1) that plaintiff was responsible for attaching the devices, 2) that plaintiff removed or copied any proprietary information, or 3) that plaintiff then destroyed the devices while under a duty to preserve them

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: USB devices

Stanfill v. Talton, No. 5:10-CV-255(MTT), 2012 WL 1035385 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved only portions of a relevant video tape and allowed the remainder to be recorded over, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions because plaintiff did not establish that a duty to preserve existed or, if it did, that it was owed to the plaintiff and because the level of culpability with which the video was lost did not support a spoliation sanction in the 11th circuit

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of defendant in jail

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Matteo v. Kohl?s Dept. Store, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 830 (RJS), 2012 WL 760317 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for defendant?s loss of potentially relevant video surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to articulate how the tape would depict anything not already represented in available still photos and thus did not establish that the tape was sufficiently relevant to warrant the requested sanction; court ordered plaintiff was entitled to attorneys? fees and costs for the motion and for her efforts to determine whether the accident had been recorded

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Tracy v. NVR, Inc., No. 04-CV-6541L, 2012 WL 1067889 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought to compel production of defendant?s litigation hold and a list of its recipients, court identified the underlying question as whether defendant?s duty to preserve extended to all potential opt-in plaintiffs and found that plaintiffs? significant delay in moving for conditional certification and the indirect nature of the evidence sought distinguished the case from Pippins v. KPMG and that plaintiffs failed to make the necessary preliminary showing of spoliation (which would justify production of the litigation hold notice) because they did not establish ?that documents that should have been preserved? were lost or destroyed; court granted defendant?s motion for sanctions for opt-in plaintiff?s spoliation of hard copy evidence (originals of a calendar indicating her daily activities, two disparate copies of which had been produced) and ordered that she be precluded from testifying as to her daily work activities during a three year period

Nature of Case: FLSA Class action

Electronic Data Involved: litigation hold notice, hard copy calendar

Gonzalez v. Las Vegas Police Dept., No. 2:09-cv-00381-JCM-PAL, 2012 WL 1118949 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where video surveillance tape was destroyed in contravention of duty to preserve, the court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions (an adverse inference) where it determined that there was no prejudice to plaintiff because defendants identified the three officers/employees who processed plaintiff on the night of the allegedly wrongful arrest and because defendants conceded that the initial booking processes indicated that plaintiff was not the person sought by the relevant warrant

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights (wrongful arrest) and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Star Direct Telecom, Inc. v. Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., No. 05-CV-6734T, 2012 WL 1067664 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where court found no evidence that defendant had instituted any litigation hold or any evidence surrounding its collection efforts and where defendant failed to preserve potentially relevant hard drives despite the knowledge that the emails potentially contained thereon could not be retrieved from the company?s backup tapes, the court found that defendant had acted with gross negligence and imposed monetary sanctions but declined to impose more severe sanctions where there was no evidence of ?bad faith or egregious gross negligence? or that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and various tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Pringle v. Adams, No. SACV 10-1656-JST (RZx), 2012 WL 1103939 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In copyright infringement action where the creation date of certain evidence was highly relevant, the court granted defendant?s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s spoliation where plaintiff had a duty to preserve but nonetheless spoliated relevant evidence by sending a relevant hard drive for ?repairs? and where he indicated he no longer had possession of another hard drive, without explanation for its unavailability, and where the court found that defendants were prejudiced by the loss of the hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives containing information regarding creation date of allegedly infringed song

Tag:Data Preservation