Data Preservation – Page 51 – Electronic Discovery Law

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that ?producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information,? but also found that in the present case the District Court abused its discretion ?in ruling that, within its spoliation analysis, Bull intentionally withheld the original documents from UPS? and further abused its discretion when it imposed the sanction of dismissal with prejudice

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of hardcopy doctor’s notes

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

Biselli v Cnty. of Ventura, No. CV 09-08694 CAS (EX), 2012 WL 2061688 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant had an obligation to preserve relevant video and in fact ?acknowledged? plaintiff?s request to preserve the video by objecting to it, court held that defendant had an obligation to preserve the requested evidence ?including a duty to deactivate any automatic purging policy? that defendant claimed resulted in the loss and ordered an adverse inference at trial with the potential for additional sanctions to be imposed later

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from suicide of inmate

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance video

Oyebade v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 1:11-cv-0968-JMS-DML, 2012 WL 4020971 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For a ?pattern of discovery misconduct, including the spoliation of evidence? (an audio tape of a meeting with HR), the court imposed an adverse inference and ordered the jury be instructed that Plaintiff destroyed the audio recording ?under circumstances that suggest that the contents ? would not be helpful in proving his claims? and further ordered that Plaintiff would not be allowed to present evidence regarding the meeting with HR, that the jury be instructed to accept defendant?s evidence about the meeting, and that defendant was entitled to its attorneys fees and expenses incurred in seeking redress for the spoliation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape of meeting with HR

Silver v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 11-12282, 2012 WL 2052949 (11th Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s litigation specialist initially asserted that no responsive emails were uncovered but later testified that she had recently been told of a possible repository of archived emails and that search efforts there were ongoing and already had uncovered several relevant emails, Circuit court found no abuse of discretion in District Court?s refusal to impose an adverse inference which requires a showing of bad faith noting that the litigation specialist?s ?initial lack of knowledge? was ?carelessness at most? and further reasoning that the admission that relevant emails had been discovered was a further indication that the defendant was not acting in bad faith

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract and similar claims related to plaintiff’s mortgage

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-890 TS, 2012 WL 1302288 (D. Utah Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? motion for sanctions the court distinguished the cases of Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) and Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009), found the defendant had not acted in bad faith, and rejected plaintiffs assertions that the duty to preserve arose from obligations to maintain information pursuant to corporate policy or an obligation to the government; noting that most relevant documents were from the 1990?s, the court also acknowledged that even where a preservation obligation exists, the passage of time can result in the inadvertent destruction or misplacement of evidence and the fading of human memories

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified in opinion

Twitty v. Salius, No. 11-448, 2012 WL 147913 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Appellate court found that District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose an adverse inference instruction for the destruction of an original surveillance tape where the destruction was negligent and where, because of the existence of copies of the tape (albeit with slight differences in tracking, color, and audio quality), the destruction did not materially prejudice plaintiff?s case

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: VHS surveillance tape

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

Tag:Data Preservation