Data Preservation – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Kessler, 2009 WL 2603104 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In a case arising from the fire of a boat while in the marina the district court rejected the magistrate?s recommendation in favor of spoliation sanctions for the marina?s failure to preserve surveillance video because the court found that the owner of the boat did not meet the burden of establishing the marina?s culpable destruction of relevant tape in violation of a duty to preserve where the footage ?self destructed approximately twenty-seven hours after it was recorded? when it was automatically recorded over in the regular course of the system?s activities; marina was ordered to bear the cost of conducting forensic examination of its hard drive to determine if fire footage could be retrieved

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from a vessel destroyed by fire while in the marina

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: U.S. District Court affirmed bankruptcy court?s sanction that facts alleged against defendant would be taken as established and that defendant was prohibited from opposing trustee?s claims against him where forensic evidence indicated that defendant destroyed evidence by installing cleaning software and by installing new operating systems on relevant computers despite his ongoing duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Adversary action alleging fraudulent transfer

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 207 P.3d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court declined to find abuse of discretion in trial court?s refusal to give a spoliation instruction regarding a missing event recorder where defendant offered a satisfactory explanation for the loss of data, namely, that the data on the event recorder was downloaded to a laptop, that the data was not properly recorded and so the faulty tape was destroyed to prevent its re-use, and that the laptop containing the data was later stolen

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from train/car collision

Electronic Data Involved: Event recorder data

Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment where court found defendant deliberately destroyed computer servers, and with it certain ESI that had been requested by the plaintiff, where such destruction demonstrated the necessary ?willfulness, bad faith and fault? to support such a sanction, where the prejudice caused by the failure to produce the ESI was ?not excused? by the fact that plaintiff already possessed some of the destroyed documents, and where less severe sanctions were previously awarded and defendant had been warned of the possibility of stricter sanctions in future

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on server

U.S. v. Cameron, 2009 WL 4544928 (D. Me. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where following an order to produce relevant laptops for defendant?s expert to examine the government represented its lack of custody of such laptops, save one, and that the laptop in its possession did not contain relevant evidence but did contain materials statutorily prohibited from dissemination, court amended order to explicitly relieve the Government of the obligation to produce materials not in its possession or to produce the laptop containing materials restricted from dissemination by statute; court?s opinion explicitly affirmed defendant?s right to question the Government regarding its failure to preserve and to bring any newly discovered evidence to the court?s attention

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff settled its claim of intentional spoliation against one defendant no longer in the case but failed to bring that claim against the defendants that remained and where the evidence was undisputed that the defendant who had settled all claims and was no longer a party to the litigation had maintained exclusive custody and control of the at-issue hard drives and plaintiff offered no evidence of the remaining defendants? involvement in destroying the relevant hard drives, the court held that the remaining defendants could not be sanctioned under either Ohio law or Federal law

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Hoyle v. Dimond, 2009 WL 604899 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not consider contact information taken from defendants to be a ?record? and thus deleted the information from his computer and did not return it, court denied motion to hold plaintiff in contempt for violating preliminary injunction upon finding that plaintiff had substantially complied with the court?s order because deletion of the data satisfied the purpose of the injunction

Nature of Case: Fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff?s computer

White v. Fuji Photo Film, USA, Inc., 209 WL 1528546 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for adverse inference arising from former employer?s destruction of her work computer where plaintiff failed to indicate that the computer contained relevant information and thus employer did not have notice sufficient to raise a duty to preserve and where plaintiff failed to establish that the lost information was relevant to the action

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s former work computer

Paradise v. Al Copeland Invs., Inc., 22 So.3d 1018 (La. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering an adverse presumption in favor of plainitff for defendant?s loss of relevant computer evidence by discarding a hard drive after it crashed where defendant offered a reasonable explanation for the loss; court?s reasoning also relied upon evidence that the communications sought by plaintiff were available from an alternative source

Nature of Case: Class action for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Tag:Data Preservation