Data Preservation – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish relevance of comment that was posted by individual defendant on Dattallegro?s web log (?blog?) but was later made unavailable for public access, and defendants had represented to court that they intended to meet their discovery obligations and would meet and confer with plaintiff to define scope of parties’ preservation obligations and protocols, court rejected plaintiff?s claim that defendants had destroyed relevant evidence and denied motion for preservation order

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Web log comment

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Sanction of dismissal not warranted where data stored on dive computers was lost when it could no longer be downloaded after one year, since plaintiff did not engage in deliberate destruction, she did not know whether data was helpful or hurtful to her case because she had not seen it, and she had not known that data would automatically become unavailable for download after one year; defendant?s entitlement to alternative relief to be decided at trial; court further granted plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant?s counterclaims for ?fraud on the court? and ?spoliation of evidence?

Nature of Case: Negligence, product liability, wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Dive information stored on VR3 dive computers

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting in part motion in limine seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence where defendants did nothing to preserve key player?s computer files but instead allowed him to continue using computer without monitoring, copying, reviewing or securing potentially relevant information, and key player admitted deleting potentially relevant files, court set out statement that would be read to jury concerning defendants? failure to preserve evidence and prohibited defendants from offering any argument or comments suggesting that lack of pornographic emails in evidence supported a finding that such emails never existed or were never shown to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, constructive discharge, emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic emails, hard drive

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve limited, immediate discovery on third party internet service provider seeking identities and contact information of defendants where court acknowledged ?good cause exists for Plaintiffs? discovery because Defendants must be identified before this suit can progress?; court ordered third party provider to give five days notice to defendants and set deadline for potential motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Tag:Data Preservation