Data Preservation – Page 59 – 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

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

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

Pac. Century Int. Ltd. v. Does 1-101, No. C-11-02533-(DMR), 2011 WL 2690142 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of good cause, court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue a subpoena to the relevant ISP seeking identifying information regarding one unknown defendant (Doe 1) but denied the motion as to the remaining 100 Does because of improper joinder

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscriber

Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-30, No. 2:11cv345, 2011 WL 2634166 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP

AMG Nat?l Trust Bank v. Ries, No. 06-CV-3061, 2011 WL 2912874 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s deletion of relevant computer files and ordered an adverse inference and payment of plaintiff?s attorney?s costs and fees but, because the extent of the prejudice could not be determined, indicated that the language of the inference would be withheld until defendant paid for a forensic examination of his computer to determine what, if any, evidence could be recovered and thus the extent of the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Diabolic Video Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-2099, No. 10-CV-5865-PSG, 2011 WL 3100404 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve expedited discovery on Doe #1?s Internet Service Provider seeking information sufficient to identify the Doe for service but severed Does 2-2099 from the case upon finding that they had been improperly joined

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscribers

Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Does 1-21, No. 11-2258 SC, 2011 WL 2976683 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had shown good cause and granted motion to serve expedited discovery on the identified Internet Service Providers of Does 1-21 for the purpose of learning the identity of the Does for service

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Olesky v. Gen. Electric Co., No. 06 C 1245, 2011 WL 3471016 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel production of documents related to defendant?s litigation hold/preservation efforts where the court found that GE was at fault for the loss of certain data beyond mere inadvertence or carelessness and that the evidence lost was both relevant and discoverable

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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

Tag:Data Preservation