Data Preservation – Page 67 – Electronic Discovery Law

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Read v. Teton Springs Golf & Casting Club, LLC, 2010 WL 2697596 (D. Idaho July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant attached to a motion an email not previously produced and where plaintiff thereafter sought an explanation for the source of the email, access to defendant?s hard drives, and sanctions, the court found defendant had responded to discovery in good faith but ordered defendant to identify the source of the email at issue and all other hard drives containing responsive documents in its possession; where a custodian represented his hard drive had been replaced in 2006, but produced no email prior to 2007, court (without suggesting misconduct) ordered production of his hard drive to be mirrored

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the manner in which Defendants marketed and sold their properties

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives

Booker v. Mass. Dept. of Public Health, 612 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in failing to issue an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to establish the evidentiary foundation for such an instruction, namely that the party accused of spoliation was 1) aware of the pending claim, and 2) aware of the document?s relevance to that claim

Nature of Case: Retaliation, torotuous interference with contractual employment relations

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Univ. Sports Publ?ns Co. v. Playmakers Media Co., 2010 WL 2802322 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the issue before the court was whether defendant had intentionally accessed plaintiff?s database without authorization, court relied on an adverse inference arising from defendant?s intentional destruction of a laptop which would have provided key evidence and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed such that summary judgment was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., LLC, 2010 WL 2764714 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of a likelihood of success in its claims and a possibility of irreparable harm absent judicial intervention, the court granted plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction precluding defendants from using, copying or divulging plaintiff?s confidential information and from destroying or erasing such information, among other things; upon the parties? agreement, the court also appointed a Special Master to preside over all proceedings regarding the preservation of plaintiff?s information in the possession of defendants, the forensic imaging of defendant?s computer systems and servers to determine the extent of plaintiff?s information in their possession, and defendant?s communications with any of plaintiff?s customers appearing in the alleged confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 2010 WL 2652412 (D.N.J. July 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find spoliation had occurred as to specific emails believed by plaintiff to have been withheld or destroyed by defendant absent sufficient evidence but, relying on defendant?s claims of work-product immunity as to a document created in Feb. 2006, found that defendant anticipated litigation as of that time and imposed an adverse inference as to any documents systematically destroyed after that date pursuant to defendant?s policy of maintaining electronic documents for only one month

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s ?workaday use? of the laptop at issue unknowingly resulted in the destruction of usable data and where the laptop did not belong to the plaintiff, was later returned to its third-party owner, and was then wiped clean, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions against plaintiff upon finding that there was insufficient evidence of plaintiff?s control of the laptop or that he knew the laptop would be wiped and, more importantly, where the court found that plaintiff?s destruction of data by using the laptop occurred before he knew it would have such a result

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants were unable to produce an electronic version of an interview summary available in hard copy and where the creator of the summary testified that after printing the summary, she could not find the electronic version on her computer and hypothesized that perhaps it had inadvertently been saved in a temporary file, the court could not find that the duty to preserve had been willfully breached or that defendant had been prejudiced by the loss, particularly where a second summary of the same interview was produced and where the person who was interviewed was available for deposition and trial, and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic version of document produced only in hard copy

Tag:Data Preservation