Data Preservation – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Dec 01 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

Paylan v. St. Mary?s Hosp. Corp., 983 A.2d 56 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where trial court precluded plaintiff from presenting evidence of a court order requiring defendant to preserve the relevant hard drive but expressly allowed the presentation of evidence concerning the destruction of the hard drive and deferred ruling on the whether to give an adverse inference instruction, and where plaintiff failed to present evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of the hard drive, a necessary element when seeking an adverse inference, court of appeals ruled trial court?s preclusion of evidence of the order was error, but that the error was harmless, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

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

DeBakker v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics E., 2009 WL 5031319 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, to obtain an adverse inference the moving party must establish ?that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed,? and where plaintiff failed to establish the individual defendant?s control of the spoliated medical notes and failed to establish the facility?s duty to preserve, court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions; in so holding, court declined to find a duty to preserve based on the facility?s own document retention policy and stated, ?the mere existence of a document retention policy does not give rise to a duty to preserve every document generated under that policy. The duty to preserve arises only when a party becomes ?reasonably aware of the possibility of litigation

Nature of Case: Action arising from allegations that defective leg brace caused a fall resulting in permanent injury

Electronic Data Involved: Medical notes

Jneid v. Tripole Corp., 2009 WL 4882654 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial upon finding that defendant ?did not act intentionally? when if failed to produce certain documents before trial and that the evidentiary and issue sanctions imposed, including preclusion of use of certain documents, preclusion from introducing certain evidence, preclusion of certain arguments, and an adverse jury instruction, were ?more severe than necessary? where an order for defendant to pay all costs incurred by the completed trial (as suggested by defendant) was sufficient to rectify the prejudice to the plaintiff; on remand, court ordered trial court to determine the cost incurred by plaintiffs and cross-complainant in connection with trial and the costs incurred because of the late production of documents and for defendant to pay such costs

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contracts

Electronic Data Involved: Computer embedded information

Bensel v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 263 F.R.D. 150(D.N.J. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite acknowledging that ?defendants should have moved more quickly to place litigation holds on the routine destruction of certain documents and electronic data,? the court found that plaintiffs failed to identify any specific document that was lost or destroyed, failed to establish destruction of documents in bad faith and failed to specify any prejudice arising from the alleged bad behavior and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; in so holding, court noted plaintiff?s reliance on speculation and ?vague statements? which did not ?rise to the specificity level required by the Third Circuit to impose sanctions or even make a finding of spoliation.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of breach of duty of fair representation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gillet v. MI Farm Bureau, 2009 WL 4981193 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted an ?extremely significant? number of data files from his personal computer despite notice of his obligation to preserve and was thus sanctioned by dismissal of his case, trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiff?s actions were not in good faith, particularly in light of the number of files deleted, and properly considered alternative sanctions before imposing terminating sanctions, despite the trial judge?s failure to ?expressly recite? those alternatives on the record; court?s denial of attorneys? fees/monetary sanctions was no abuse of discretion where the court ?dealt appropriately? with plaintiff?s conduct by dismissing the case and where the refusal to impose additional sanctions was ?not unreasoned or unprincipled?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to issue a litigation hold, court ordered plaintiff to issue a litigation hold as to those personnel likely to possess discoverable evidence and to file a sworn declaration describing whether any files had been lost, the methods use to determine the existence of such a loss, the extend of the loss, and the nature of the litigation hold placed in response to the present order; court found plaintiff?s production of documents ?problematic? where it failed to organize the production according to Rule 34 and ordered plaintiff to ?amend? its production to comply; acknowledging that ?the identities of those in control of certain documents is information that may be as relevant as the documents? [substance]?, court ordered search and production of President?s documents despite claims that those documents were produced from other custodians

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Data Preservation