Tag: Motion for Preservation Order

1
Sweltic Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr, Inc. v. Foot Levelers, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-236, 2016 WL 1657922 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016)
2
Bright Sols. For Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe, No. 15-cv-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015)
3
Lemon Juice v. Twitter, Inc., No. 502898/14, 2014 WL 4287049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2014)
4
In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2385, 2014 WL 1222222 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2014)
5
Cognate Bioservices, Inc. v. Smith, Civil No. WDQ-13-1797, 2014 WL 988857 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2014)
6
Lopez v. Cate, No. 1:10-cv-01773-AWI-SKO, 2014 WL 3615480 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2014)
7
U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni, No. 2:13-cv-1770 LLK AC, 2014 WL 172336 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)
8
McDaniel v. Loyola Univ. Med. Center, No. 13-cv-06500, 2014 WL 1775685 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2014)
9
Petition of John W. Danforth Group, Inc, No. 13-MC033S, 2013 WL 3324017 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013)
10
Reinsdorf v. Academy Ltd., No. 3:13-0269, 2013 WL 3475183 (M.D. Tenn. July 10, 2013)

Sweltic Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr, Inc. v. Foot Levelers, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-236, 2016 WL 1657922 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016)

Key Insight: Where third party refused to preserve potentially relevant evidence absent a court order and maintained a retention policy that would result in the automatic deletion of the at-issue information, court granted in part Plaintiff?s motion to compel preservation (finding that the requested scope of preservation appeared overly broad) but declined to compel forensic imaging

Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Fax transmission reports and other ESI identifying fax numbers that received advertisements

Bright Sols. For Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe, No. 15-cv-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to discover the identity of Defendant Doe; court also granted Plaintiffs? ex parte motion for a preservation order directing eBay, PayPal, and Google to preserve account information where the third parties had no independent duty to preserve absent a court order and where Plaintiffs established that: the at-issue data was regularly destroyed by the third parties in their regular business practices, that Plaintiffs would be ?irreparably harmed? by the loss of the at-issue data (because they could not serve Defendant and stop the alleged infringement), and that the third parties had the capability to maintain the information, particularly because of the limited nature of the request

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

 

Lemon Juice v. Twitter, Inc., No. 502898/14, 2014 WL 4287049 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 29, 2014)

Key Insight: Where unknown person created Twitter account in plaintiff?s name and in violation of criminal court’s order took photo of child victim in court testifying against her tormentor and posted it to Twitter account, court ruled that plaintiff had met his burden of demonstrating a meritorious claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the discovery sought from Twitter was needed in order to identify who should be named as a defendant, and that anonymous Twitter account creator?s behavior constituted an actionable tort and was not speech covered by First Amendment protection such that anonymity of creator had to yield to plaintiff?s need to redress the actionable wrong perpetrated against him; court directed Twitter to disclose basic subscriber information, records, internet protocol addresses and other similar information sufficient to identify owner of the bogus Twitter account and to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) seeking an order directing Twitter to preserve certain evidence and to disclose certain information

Electronic Data Involved: Twitter subscriber information sufficient to identify the individual(s) who owned or operated particular Twitter account and logged into or “tweeted” on the account

In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2385, 2014 WL 1222222 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2014)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ request to preserve by storing existing hard drives for the duration of the litigation in lieu of creating and storing a mirror image of the hard drives, and ordered them to place the hard drives in a storage facility that is environmentally conducive to the continued viability of the integrity of the hard drives based on universally accepted computer industry standards

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Laptops of document custodians subject to litigation hold, the operating systems of which were due to be upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7

Cognate Bioservices, Inc. v. Smith, Civil No. WDQ-13-1797, 2014 WL 988857 (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2014)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for an order to preserve evidence, finding that defendant had complied with his duty to preserve — he gave opposing party notice that the laptop he used in connection with his employment at competitor would be returned after his resignation, provided the name and address of the person in possession of the laptop, and made efforts to ensure that relevant information on the laptop was not deleted

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee and his new consulting firm for violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, misappropriations of products, misappropriations of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop, computer passwords to former employer’s virtual private network and server computers

Lopez v. Cate, No. 1:10-cv-01773-AWI-SKO, 2014 WL 3615480 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2014)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for preliminary injunction and preservation order, reasoning as to the request for a preservation order that defendants had issued a litigation hold letter and that plaintiff had not shown that such an order was needed due to ?any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or destroyed during the pendency of this action?

Nature of Case: Civil rights action (pro se prisoner)

Electronic Data Involved: [F]iles and records, including e-files and intact meta data

U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni, No. 2:13-cv-1770 LLK AC, 2014 WL 172336 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)

Key Insight: Motion for spoliation sanctions denied without prejudice where plaintiff argued that individual defendants violated their duty to preserve by continuing to use their personal electronic devices after receiving notice of the action and not “quarantining” the devices pending forensic imaging, as plaintiff did not make a specific showing that spoliation had, in fact, occurred; testimony of plaintiff’s forensic experts was mere speculation as neither expert identified any actual loss of data nor provided any forensic analysis of the personal electronic devices at issue

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on individual defendants’ personal electronic devices

McDaniel v. Loyola Univ. Med. Center, No. 13-cv-06500, 2014 WL 1775685 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2014)

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendants would destroy discoverable information or that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without a preservation order, court denied motion for preservation order as superfluous and needlessly burdensome where defendants were fully apprised of the scope and gravity of their preservation duties and the consequences of breaching them

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data and e-mail

Petition of John W. Danforth Group, Inc, No. 13-MC033S, 2013 WL 3324017 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013)

Key Insight: Where petitioner sought to perpetuate evidence and an order of preservation pursuant to Rule 27 in light of an anticipated witness?s untruthfulness about his use of social media and refusal to turn over his personal mobile phone or to allow for a backup to be made absent a court order, the court declined to issue such an order where Rule 27 relief should be granted ?only in special circumstances to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost? and where the petitioner?s ?generalized statements of concern? were insufficient to warrant pre-complaint intervention

Nature of Case: Pre-complaint order of preservation

Electronic Data Involved: Anticipated witness’s mobile device

Reinsdorf v. Academy Ltd., No. 3:13-0269, 2013 WL 3475183 (M.D. Tenn. July 10, 2013)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a preservation order based primarily on Defendant?s refusal to share the details of its preservation efforts and based on speculation that Defendant had not preserved certain evidence (based on its use of a blank, rather than ?actual? purchase order as an exhibit to a motion), the court found that plaintiff offered only speculation and denied the motion; court also commented, based on the detailed nature of Plaintiff?s proposed order, that ?Plaintiff essentially wants the Court to grant a discovery request that has not been made?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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