Data Preservation – Page 64 – Electronic Discovery Law

Azevedo v. City of Fresno, 2010 WL 2353526 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where two years following the relevant altercation the taser used on plaintiff was sent to the manufacturer for repair, deemed irreparable, and was destroyed without preserving the data contained thereon, the court ruled the spoliation was negligent and declined to impose dispositive sanctions or evidence preclusion, but, noting it was ?troubled? by the data?s destruction, granted permission for plaintiff to file a motion in limine addressing the propriety of a rebuttable inference instruction regarding the spoliation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from detention and arrest of plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff being tasered and injured

Electronic Data Involved: Taser data

Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For failing to preserve the laptops issued to plaintiffs while working for defendant, the court found defendant was ?at a minimum? negligent and indicated that an adverse inference would be crafted after all the evidence had been received. For ?prolonged delay? in producing relevant emails the court denied terminating sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Electronic Data Involved: Data on laptops, emails

State of California ex rel Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 2010 WL 3991298 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants resisted production of electronically stored information and sought to shift the costs of such production to plaintiff by presenting affidavits and expert testimony regarding the expected cost of production which, in large part, was the result of defendants? lack of a data retrieval system for archived information and its failure to suspend archiving documents despite the commencement of related litigation in 2004, and where it was revealed that the expert testimony presented lacked sufficient foundation, the court held that defendants had acted in bad faith and could no longer be trusted and awarded plaintiffs? fees and costs in the amount of $42,978.43; affirmed on appeal

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ESI

DeMeo v. City of Albany, 901 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion when it denied petitioner?s motion for contempt for respondent?s violation of the court?s preservation order where petitioner failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the loss and failed to establish the violation was knowing and willful where respondent testified he initially preserved but then lost the relevant video tape when, as he ?surmised?, his spouse cleaned his office without his knowledge ?and placed the hard drive back into rotation with the others, thus taping over the pertinent portions?

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleging assault commenced action seeking to preserve surveillance video

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where as the result of a finding of willful spoliation the district court ordered an adverse inference that established Oracle?s CEO?s knowledge of any material facts that Plaintiffs were able to establish, but where plaintiffs were nonetheless defeated at summary judgment and thereafter appealed the order arguing that the inference should have been sufficient to defeat a challenge to the insufficiency of their prima facie case, the appellate court affirmed the holding of the district court noting that, ?in light of the enormous record developed in this case, the only conceivable benefit of Defendant?s spoliation was the possibility of disclaiming Ellison?s knowledge of any damaging facts underlying the purported fraud? and that the district court?s sanction was ?carefully fashioned to deny Defendants that benefit?

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: emaisl, ESI

Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference for grossly negligent failure to preserve where defendant?s duty to preserve was triggered by its awareness that its decision to terminate an agreement with plaintiff would trigger litigation but where defendant failed to impose a litigation hold until after plaintiff?s complaint was filed and failed to discontinue its automatic deletion of emails which resulted in the loss of relevant emails; court?s analysis included discussion of prior sanctions against defendant for failure to preserve in Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Dana Ltd. v. American Axle & Mfg. Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 5394885 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to clarify the agreed preliminary injunction order where, following entry of the agreement, defendant determined that the broad language addressing preservation created a cost prohibitive obligation that was broader than necessary to protect the plaintiff and agreed to enter an order reflecting defendant?s proposed revision which was more specific regarding what must be preserved

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp., 2010 WL 1286366 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found destruction or loss of documents resulting from failure to issue a litigation hold grossly negligent but declined to recommend dismissal or an adverse inference where the record did not reveal actual or likely prejudice and held open defendant?s option to renew their request following re-depositions of the relevant custodian, the cost of which plaintiff was to bear; for the late production of responsive documents, court recommended additional depositions and for plaintiff to bear the cost and for plaintiff to bear defendants? costs associated with the instant motions; magistrate judge?s recommendations were affirmed by the district court in their entirety 2010 WL 4027780 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged defects in cellular towers designed and manufactured by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

United States v. Laurent, 2010 WL 2404419 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Tag:Data Preservation