Tag:Data Preservation

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law by ordering that, as a sanction for grossly negligent spoliation of audio tapes pursuant to Defendant?s retention policy, there would be a presumption of a factual dispute at the summary judgment state as to whether Plaintiff hung up on a customer and that if the case proceeded to trial, the court should instruct the jury with a ?spoliation charge? ?not an adverse inference?which would allow but not require the jury to presume that the lost evidence was relevant and favorable to the innocent party; District Court acknowledged that bad faith was necessary to impose an adverse inference, but found that this was not an adverse inference and was therefore within the court?s discretion

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of relevant phone calls

Key Insight: Where defendant lost relevant text messages while trying to transfer them to from his phone to his computer during the time when he had an obligation to preserve them, court found that the loss was negligent?a level of culpability sufficient to impose sanctions?and that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the messages would have supported Plaintiff?s claims and found that ?an adverse inference instruction is the most appropriate sanction to be imposed?

Nature of Case: Fraud, RICO, unfair trade practices and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant?s automatic purge of contents from a relevant website following closure of bidding process, court found defendant was on notice of obligation to preserve by virtue of Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring preservation of ?all the contract documents associated with procurement,? that the United States had been negligent in failing to preserve the information, and that plaintiff was prejudiced and, focusing on the need to impose the least harsh sanction, ordered that defendant would be prohibited from relying upon any secondary evidence regarding what Plaintiff saw on the relevant website (the question of what Plaintiff saw on the website and therefore what Plaintiff knew was a major issue in the case)

Nature of Case: Pre-award bid protest

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of website used to submit bids

Key Insight: Where Defendant threw laptop containing relevant evidence into the river following specific notice of her obligation to preserve and admitted her intent to destroy evidence, the court recommended entry of default judgment and that Defendant be required to pay Plaintiff?s reasonably attorneys? fees and costs incurred as a result of the spoliation

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Key Insight: In a brief discussion of spoliation, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions where, despite the fact that it ?seemed clear that there was some loss of evidence ? in the form of email and/or ?instant messages? ? at a time [Plaintiff] knew litigation was imminent,? the evidence suggested that the loss was inadvertent, there was no claim of bad faith or evidence to support such a finding, defendant?s claims of prejudice were largely speculative and defendant did not aggressively pursue the issue of spoliation; court?s analysis stated that ?in these circumstances? (referencing apparent inadvertence of the loss and lack of a claim of bad faith), ?the court looks to the culpability of those involved and the relevance of the proof to the issues at hand?

Nature of Case: Action to recover payment for propane transfers based on conversion and unjust enrichment theories

Electronic Data Involved: Email and/or instant messages

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs failed to take appropriate steps to preserve information, including failing to suspend their document destruction policy and failing to issue a litigation hold, which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents (but, as the court concluded, not ESI), the court declined to impose drastic sanctions but recommended that the jury be instructed about the failure to preserve (but not instructed to draw any inferences based on that destruction) and recommended that plaintiffs be ordered to pay $1000 to defendant to ?partially compensate? it for attorneys? fees incurred by its motion and to pay $1000 to the court clerk

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy inspection reports

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s allegations of spoliation for defendants? loss of potentially relevant video footage, court declined to impose sanctions because it could not find that defendants had the necessary culpable mind reasoning that 1) defendants? production of other relevant video footage of the same event and another, similar event, contradicted plaintiff?s claims that defendants feared the video would cause them to lose the lawsuit, 2) that ?digital information can be destroyed or hopelessly misplaced in a data base at the touch of a button, without warning or recourse, and the prison?s system for preserving footage included three transition points when a technician?s inadvertent error could have destroyed or misplaced the? relevant footage, and 3) that the footage of the incident involving the plaintiff was not the only footage lost, suggesting that ?the event causing that loss was not intended to harm [Plaintiff?s] case?

Nature of Case: Eight Amendment violations, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Camcorder footage

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Investigation file, original medical records, “comments section” of medical records from computer system

Key Insight: Noting that the ?offending party?s degree of fault and the corresponding prejudice suffered by the non-offending party? were the ?most important? factors for consideration when determining whether to impose sanctions, court denied request for spoliation sanctions where the information Plaintiff alleged was spoliated was not relevant to the issues in the case, where Plaintiff merely speculated that the lost information would support his case, and where Plaintiff could have obtained the information from third parties but chose not to

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives containing certain allegedly relevant communications

Key Insight: Where Defendant reinstalled the operating system on his personal laptop two days after his first deposition (where he was informed a request for ESI would be forthcoming) claiming that he did so to ensure that he did not possess Plaintiff?s proprietary information, and where Defendant had previously deleted the information on a relevant flash drive, the court found Defendant had acted intentionally and that Plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss and ordered an adverse inference allowing, but not requiring, the jury to infer that the deleted information was unfavorable to Defendant and also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys? fees and costs connected with bringing the motion for sanctions; court acknowledged applicability of agency law in determining whether to impose sanctions against a party for spoliation by its employees but declined to do so in the present case

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI