Data Preservation – Page 58 – Electronic Discovery Law

Vieste v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-0424 JSW (MSR), 2011 WL 2198257 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to pay sanctions equal to ?reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred [by Plaintiffs] in bringing this motion? where defendants were ordered to provide a detailed explanation of their preservation and collection processes but instead submitted declarations which failed to answer basic questions, answered others with minimal information, and relied on conclusory statements; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, despite the court?s ?serious concerns? about a certain custodian?s preservation and collection efforts, spoliation was not established, and as to other specific evidence for which the evidence of spoliation was not clear, ordered that if it had not previously been produced, defendants would be barred from its use

Nature of Case: Brach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Kosher Sports Inc. v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, No. 10-CV-2618 (JBW), 2011 WL 3471508 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Oce N. Amer., Inc. v, MCS Servs., Inc., No. WMN-10-0984, 2011 WL 6130542 (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where an employee of defendant used scrubbing software intended to delete illicit, non-responsive ESI from a lap top subject to court-ordered preservation and in the process also deleted potentially relevant ESI, the court found that such behavior was at least negligent and thus indicated that sanctions were warranted, but reserved judgment on what sanctions would be imposed until the severity of the resulting prejudice could be determined; where a second employee intentionally completed a Windows update that deleted Restore Points from the hard drive (also subject to court-ordered preservation), the court found the spoliation was at least negligent but again withheld imposition of a sanction pending a determination of the prejudice suffered; the court ordered defendants to pay plaintiff?s reasonable expenses in making the motion, including attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on employees’ hard drives

Roth v. Sloan, No. 1:08 CV 1656, 2011 WL 1298498 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that the accused spoliator had custody and control of the allegedly spoliated audiotape and where the plaintiff was not prejudiced in light of his receipt of a transcript of the tape

Nature of Case: Witness intimidation, retaliation, defamation or false-light invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

United States v. Univ. Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 2559552 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve video surveillance tape where the parties initially agreed that the tapes for the thirty days preceding the subpoena need not be saved, thus creating the understanding that tape recycling could proceed as usual, and where, as a result of this agreement, defendants could not be said to have failed to preserve in bad faith; court also declined to infer spoliation absent evidence that additional, relevant ESI existed that had not been produced

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act and The VA Fraud Against Taxpayers Act

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Chen v. LW Restaurant, Inc., No. 10 CV 200 (ARR), 2011 WL 3420433 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata

United States ex rel Berglund v. Boeing Co., 835 F.Supp.2d 1020 (D. Or. Dec. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff altered and deleted emails and discarded potentially relevant hard drives the court undertook a substantial analysis of the relevant legal standards surrounding spoliation and, upon consideration of those standards, imposed two monetary sanctions requiring the plaintiff to pay for the reasonable costs and fees arising from his failure to produce a hard drive as he had been directed to do by the court and to pay for Boeing?s costs ?directly connected with the investigation and discovery of the altered emails?; the court also dismissed, with prejudice, plaintiff?s claim of retaliation

Nature of Case: Violations of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Liberman v. Fedex Ground Package Syst., Inc., 2011 WL 145474 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant negligently failed to preserve information that would have revealed whether a FedEx agent delivered packages to the address of the relevant accident on the day in question and where the presence of such a delivery person was disputed by FedEx, the court declined to grant default judgment but ordered an adverse inference establishing that a FedEx agent had delivered a package to the relevant address on the date of the accident

Nature of Case: Injury resulting from being hit by delivery handtruck loaded with boxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3 :09cv58, 2011 WL 1597528 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiff?s alleged deletion of relevant ESI upon finding that because plaintiff would not have known of the relevance of information in the identified custodians? custody at the time ESI was lost, there was no duty to preserve and thus no spoliation; as to ESI alleged to have been deleted while a duty to preserve existed, the court denied sanctions absent evidence of relevance or that defendant was prejudiced by the alleged loss

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of business information, conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Kermode v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., No. 3:09-CV-584-DPJ-FKB, 2011 WL 2619096 (S.D. Miss. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly spoliated emails and where, if the emails had existed, they would have been automatically deleted prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve and thus would not have been lost in bad faith; court?s analysis included discussion of trigger of duty to preserve and reasoned that meetings between accused professor and his department head and/or program director regarding alleged unwanted interactions with student did not trigger university?s duty to preserve because there was no evidence to suggest that either the department head or program director should have reasonably anticipated litigation at that time (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 for proposition that ?Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm wide duty to-preserve.?)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Data Preservation