Data Preservation – Page 58 – Electronic Discovery Law

Centrifugal Force, Inc. v. Softnet Commc?n, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for alleged spoliation of one email where plaintiff failed to establish that the ?destruction of the email was anything but inadvertent or that any other email was deleted? or that the email constituted relevant evidence favorable to the defendants; court?s opinion indicated that defendants? use of oral instruction to preserve evidence was acceptable; court denied motion for sanctions related to defendants? failure to preserve and produce all runtime environments for allegedly infringing software program where defendants took efforts to preserve similar evidence with the belief that such preservation was sufficient and thus did not have a sufficiently capable state of mind to establish spoliation and where plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of the allegedly spoliated evidence to its claims

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer files related to development of allegedly infringing software

Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., No. CV-09-2153-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1671925 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Highlighting that a party?s duty of preservation is owed to the court and not to a potential plaintiff, court found that defendant was grossly negligent in its failure to issue a litigation hold or take other efforts to ensure preservation of relevant evidence and ordered an adverse inference; court also found that defendant acted ?willfully in failing to timely and adequately respond to the document requests? where defendant?s search terms were not ?calculated to capture? relevant documents and where a court ordered (re)search resulted in production of thousands of documents only three days before the close of discovery and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct and for the reasonable attorney?s fees spent to challenge the misconduct, prepare for additional depositions, and bring the instant motion for sanctions; court?s opinion specifically declined to hold that a lack of written litigation hold was negligence per se

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. related to purchase of condominium

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 274 F.R.D. 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendants? discovery abuses, including spoliation or withholding of audio tapes of wiretapped conversations despite a court order to produce them; destruction of relevant hard drives and refusal to authorize release of copies of those drives from a third-party; and failure to produce other relevant evidence, court found that plaintiff had been prejudiced and ordered default sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fraudulent scheme to recover insurance reimbursements

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, hard drives

Cacace v. Meyer Mktg. (Macau Commercial Offshore) Co., No. 06 Civ. 2938(KMK)(GAY), 2011 WL 1833338 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found duty to preserve arose upon defendant?s consultation with counsel regarding possible infringement on plaintiff?s patent but abated upon the parties? successful negotiation of licensing agreement; court found that defendant had no control and thus no obligation to preserve certain documents from an employee of a Hong-Kong based affiliate; regarding an email folder accidentally deleted following inadvertent ?exposure? to automated purge function, court declined to find the loss was a result of negligence and found that plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of information lost and declined to impose sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where detective preserved transcripts of internet chats by copying them into Word documents saved onto CD and verifying that they were identical to the original transcripts rather than preserving the original transcript on a department hard drive for purposes of saving space, defendant?s due process rights were not denied by destruction of the original transcript absent evidence that they would ?significantly contribute to his defense? and were lost as a result of bad faith; transcripts in Word documents were properly admitted in light of detective?s testimony that he participated in the chats and that the transcripts were accurate; transcripts did not violate best evidence rule absent evidence that originals were destroyed in bad faith; admission of transcripts did not violate rule of completeness; district court did not err in denying request for jury instruction on spoliation and destruction of evidence where there was no evidence that portions of chat were destroyed (because detective testified he saved conversations in their entirety) and no showing prejudice

Nature of Case: Crimnal charges related to attempt to coerce minor to engage in sezual activity

Electronic Data Involved: Chat transcripts

Jacobeit v. Rich Township H.S. Dist. 227, No. 09 CV 1924, 2011 WL 2039588 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s delayed production of certain relevant documents, including emails, court granted plaintiff permission to re-depose certain witnesses but denied his request for evidentiary and exclusionary sanctions; court found defendant had breached its duty to preserve when it destroyed an audio tape of school board meeting pursuant to the District?s normal retention policy but that culpability and prejudice were not significant and ordered that plaintiff be allowed to question a certain deponent regarding the meeting, but no other sanctions; court found defendants breached duty of preservation as to certain emails, but that prejudice was minimal, and declined to allow forensic examination of the District?s computers, but ordered that defendants bear the reasonable costs of plaintiff?s motion and reply

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, audio tape of board meeting

State v. McNeil, 708 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Dismissal of trial for destruction of video tape of defendant?s traffic stop was reversed where appellate court concluded the lost tape did not rise to the level of constitutional materiality and was instead ?at best potentially exculpatory? and where there was no evidence that the tape was destroyed in bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal possession

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of traffic stop

F.T.C. v. Asia Pac. Telecom, Inc., No. 10 C 3168, 2011 WL 2110220 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found defendants in contempt and, in the alternative, invoked its inherent authority to sanction where defendants were found to have deactivated a relevant Yahoo! email account in violation of a temporary restraining order which caused the information therein to be permanently lost and where the court found that the deactivation was in bad faith and resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff; court declined to impose default judgment but ordered adverse inferences which substantially eased plaintiff?s ability to establish liability

Nature of Case: Violations of National Do Not Call Registry

Electronic Data Involved: Web based emails

State v. L.D.G., No. 65631-1-I, 2011 WL 2176542 (Wash. Ct. App. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where video of defendant?s alleged assault was sent via email to an investigating officer but was automatically deleted by the email program, where the physical copy was ?faulty? and would not play, and where the original tape was destroyed, the court nonetheless found that defendant?s due process rights were not violated where ?the exculpatory value of the video was not apparent and the State did not act in bad faith?

Nature of Case: Assault (criminal)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Greene v. Netsmart Techs., No. CV 08-4971(TCP)(AKT), 2011 WL 2225004 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where there was a delay in plaintiff?s production of relevant evidence and where handwritten notes and certain audio tapes were negligently destroyed but where no unique evidence was ultimately lost because the information was transferred to another source before its destruction, court declined to dismiss the case or to impose an adverse inference but, noting that there was ?clearly a breakdown in communication between Plaintiff and his counsel regarding document preservation and collection,? imposed monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s expenses related to efforts to obtain the relevant evidence, to be shared 50/50 by plaintiff and his counsel; Recommendation adopted by the District Court: 2011 WL 2193399

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Tapes, handwritten notes

Tag:Data Preservation