Tag:Data Preservation

1
Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)
2
Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., 2009 WL 274483 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)
3
In re Debusk, 2009 WL 1256891 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2009)
4
Chirdo v. Mineral Techs., Inc., 2009 WL 2195135 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2009)
5
Blangsted v. Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Prot. Dist., 2009 WL 2407655 (Aug. 5, 2009
6
Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)
7
Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)
8
Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)
9
Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009
10
Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., 2009 WL 274483 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Despite plaintiffs? claim that they had ?already been prejudiced? by the ?confessed destruction? of ESI in its native format through defendant?s ?systematic purges? of its computer systems, court denied motion to lift stay of discovery and impose preservation order where defendant provided affidavit stating a litigation hold was imposed and that the ?regular document retention policy? had not been applied to information relating the loans at issue in the case, and where plaintiffs presented no evidence to the contrary

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Debusk, 2009 WL 1256891 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2009)

Key Insight: District court affirmed bankruptcy court?s denial of debtor?s discharge for violations of 11 U.S.C. ? 727(a)(3), among other things, where debtor failed to preserve adequate records from which is financial condition or business transactions could be ascertained and where debtor failed to offer sufficient justification for such behavior beyond his own failure to adequately back up his electronic records and the subsequent loss of his records as the result of a computer virus

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records

Chirdo v. Mineral Techs., Inc., 2009 WL 2195135 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for alleged destruction of emails where the emails were destroyed pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy five months prior to defendant?s receipt of plaintiff?s EEOC charge at a time when there was no duty to preserve and where plaintiff only vaguely alleged the contents of the documents and their relevance; human resources representative?s comment that plaintiff?s review was ?evidence in support of any future litigation? did not trigger duty to preserve because ?that is the primary purpose for the retention of human resource records? and because she did not know that the time of the statement that plaintiff would be terminated, let alone file a lawsuit

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Blangsted v. Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Prot. Dist., 2009 WL 2407655 (Aug. 5, 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought dismissal or a new trial based upon plaintiff?s loss of an audiotape of the meeting in which he was terminated, court declined to grant the requested sanctions upon finding that no litigation was pending at the time of the loss, that any prejudice to defendants was small, that plaintiff?s degree of culpability was small and where there was no evidence of bad faith; court nonetheless indicated its willingness to consider the loss in any claims for fees or costs citing plaintiff?s failure to disclose the existence and loss of the tape which resulted in expenses to defendants to settle the dispute

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for fees and costs related to 30(b)(6) deposition despite acknowledgment that deposition was unnecessary but for city?s delay in locating copies of 911 tapes following original?s destruction by NYPD; court indicated familiarity with NYPD?s destruction of 911 tapes and, while recognizing unique concerns such as storage space, nonetheless indicated the need to balance that concern with the value of tape recorded evidence; court urged city?s counsel to consider measures to ensure preservation of tapes once litigation is anticipated

Nature of Case: Constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: 911 call tapes

Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Where court found defendant had perjured himself, including making untrue statements about the existence of relevant evidence, had willfully disobeyed the court?s order to produce ?substantial documents,? and had knowingly and intentionally either destroyed or ordered destroyed relevant electronically stored information, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising from defendant’s breach of contract and defendant’s undereporting of revenue and underpayment of taxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff?s affirmative claims dismissed, for plaintiff to bear all costs reasonably incurred in connection with defendant?s efforts to obtain discovery of plaintiff?s emails, and that the jury be provided an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff engaged in egregious discovery violations, including incomplete productions, installation and use of software intended to delete relevant emails from his computer, and misrepresentations to the court, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.