Tag:Data Preservation

1
Clark Constr. Group, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 229 F.R.D. 131 (W.D. Tenn. 2005)
2
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)
3
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)
4
United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)
5
Burgess v. Goord, 2005 WL 1458236 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2005)
6
Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)
7
United States v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 374 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005)
8
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)
9
Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-20, 2005 WL 3776346 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2005)
10
Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Clark Constr. Group, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 229 F.R.D. 131 (W.D. Tenn. 2005)

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions against city in the form of a rebuttable adverse inference, and fees and costs related to the discovery dispute, based upon city’s grossly negligent failure to institute litigation hold and consequent destruction of relevant hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Email printouts and other hard copy documents

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed case with prejudice because, among other things, plaintiffs had failed to preserve relevant electronic data that plaintiffs knew were critical, and it would be impossible for defendants to defend the case without the electronic data that was not produced and no longer available

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preservation order, finding that plaintiff had not made a showing of a significant threat that documents would be lost or destroyed absent entry of an immediate order, and concluding that the regular procedures for discovery (including the court’s Electronic Discovery Guidelines) were sufficient and appropriate

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic evidence

Burgess v. Goord, 2005 WL 1458236 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied inmate’s request to preserve videotapes allegedly showing he was denied food trays because they were irrelevant to inmate’s claims; complaint alleged that he was denied medical treatment and should be transferred to another facility, not that he was denied food trays

Nature of Case: Inmate sought injunctive relief transferring him to a different facility

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

United States v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 374 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005)

Key Insight: Conviction of Arthur Anderson for obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC affirmed; conviction was based on government’s allegations that, in order to protect the firm and the firm’s largest single account (Enron), Anderson ordered a mass destruction of documents to keep them from the hands of the SEC; Anderson unsuccessfully attempted to cloak the destruction of documents under the auspices of its document retention policies

Nature of Case: Criminal charge of obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-20, 2005 WL 3776346 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte application for leave to take immediate discovery from defendants’ Internet Service Provider, whose subscriber activity log files would allow plaintiffs to discover each defendant’s true name, address and other identifying information

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ISP’s subscriber activity logs

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.