Motion for Sanctions – Page 43 – Electronic Discovery Law

Clientron Corp. Devon IT, Inc., —F. Supp. 3d—, No. 13-5634, 2015 WL 5093084 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery violations, including failure to adequately search for responsive evidence, failure to designate a 30(b)(6) representative for deposition, and admitted deletion of emails despite a duty to preserve, the court found that sanctions were warranted and imposed serious sanctions, including monetary sanctions, exclusion of evidence, and ?enforcing the judgement of the Taiwanese court? against Defendant, where Defendant?s litigation misbehavior may have rendered Plaintiff unable to prove its contractual claim in court

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Ralser v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 13-2799, 2015 WL 5016351 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant was unable to produce the original version of a particularly relevant document in native format and claimed the loss resulted from the automatic deletion of the original version pursuant to the company?s document retention policy, the court declined to impose sanctions reasoning that a later version of the document was provided to Defendant?s legal department, that it was ?not obvious? that prior versions needed to be preserved and that by the time Plaintiff filed his lawsuit following termination, a year had passed and the document would have been destroyed under the retention policy; the court further reasoned:? While this destruction still occurred during the litigation hold, the fact that Winn Dixie?s normal retention policy called for the document?s destruction undermines a finding of bad faith because Winn?Dixie?s failure to adjust the document retention system to comply with the litigation hold signified an omission, and not a commission. In other words, Winn?Dixie?s failure to retain the electronic document was not the result of a directed action to delete the document but rather a failure to turn off the automatic deletion mechanism. Such action, at best, amounts to negligence and does not rise to the level of bad faith.?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Original version of relevant ESI

Wilder v. Rockdale Cnty., No. 1:13?CV?2715?RWS, 2015 WL 1724596 (N.D. Ga. April 15, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where defendants downloaded some, but not all available video within three days of incident and video-recording system programmed by third-party vendor automatically overwrote old video after thirty days, court found that defendants did not destroy evidence in bad faith and plaintiff was not extremely prejudiced and, therefore, not entitled to spoliation sanctions. Court also reviewed the record related to missing documents and said that defendants had diligently searched for the documents and concluded, ?Apparently, Defendants do not have these documents, and there is no evidence of bad faith or spoliation of evidence. Because Defendants are only required to produce what they have, the Court cannot compel Defendants to produce these documents.?

Nature of Case: Wrongful Death

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance Video; Documents

Cognate Bioservices, Inc. v. Smith, No. WDO-13-1797, 2015 WL 5158732 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiff accused Defendant, its former officer (CEO), of accessing and copying proprietary materials and providing them to another corporation; court found Defendant?s failure to preserve notebooks and the contents of a discarded smartphone to be willful (but not in bad faith) and the failure to issue a litigation hold resulting in the loss of ESI to be grossly negligent; relevance was presumed as to the willfully destroyed materials and was established as to the ESI lost as the result of the litigation hold failure but, after reasoning that the prejudice resulting from the loss of the notebooks was ?clear?-based on their contents-the court indicated that prejudice resulting from the loss of the smartphone and other deletions was ?more complicated? where the ESI may still exist (on a preserved laptop), indicating that if they could not be recovered, the destruction would be prejudicial and warrant sanctions; for willful destruction of notebooks, court recommended that the presiding judge consider an adverse inference; for loss of contents of smartphone and other ESI, court indicated the sanctions were the to be decided by presiding judge and would depend on whether the information could be obtained from another source (i.e., the level of prejudice); no spoliation found as to at-issue laptop where defendant returned the laptop to an employee of the corporate owner, but where that employee was notified to preserve the contents and thus it was unclear if any ESI was lost

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy notebooks, emails/smartphone, ESI

Grove City Veterinary Serv. LLC v. Charter Practices Int?l, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-02276-AC, 2015 WL 4937393 (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff had a ?continuing business relationship? with Defendant despite the pending litigation and Defendant hosted Plaintiff?s emails on its servers, court rejected Plaintiff?s claim that Defendant?s changes to the email-archiving system resulted in a loss of Plaintiff?s emails where Plaintiff could provide no evidence of Defendant?s alleged access to Plaintiff?s emails and where Defendant credibly posited that Plaintiff had accidentally ?dragged and dropped? the missing email folders into the ?Notes? tab of the archived mailbox (where the emails were ultimately located); court also declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s initial refusal to assist Plaintiff to locate the emails (that it had requested) where it had no duty to do so, and where despite that lack of duty, it nonetheless ultimately made a good faith, but unsuccessful, search effort; Defendant?s litigation hold on Plaintiff?s email account to retain copies of messages that anyone attempted to delete did not warrant sanctions, despite Plaintiff?s claim that the hold was ?worse than spoliation? because ?unlike evidence unlawfully destroyed by a party, evidence placed in a litigation hold is still available to the party implementing the litigation hold?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Bloom v. Toliver, No. 12-CV-169-JED-FHM, 2015 WL 5344360 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where prisoner alleged that he was attacked by another inmate and that corrections officers failed to properly respond, court found prison had a duty to preserve relevant surveillance footage and the recording of the involved-officer?s phone call to his wife immediately following the incident and that the failure to do so resulted in prejudice; court ordered evidentiary sanctions for the loss of certain footage, but reserved a determination re: sanctions as to lost video of the aftermath of the attack and the officer?s phone call

Nature of Case: Civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage and call recording

Henry v. Abbott Labs., No. 2:12-cv-841, 2015 WL 5729344 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Despite duty to preserve personnel records created by regulation (29 CFR ? 1602.14), court found no ?regulatory violation? in the destruction of documents subject to preservation until a ?final disposition? of the action where documents were destroyed following Plaintiff?s failure to appeal the dismissal of her case; court also found that even if Defendant had an ongoing duty to preserve (because the case was eventually reinstated upon Plaintiff?s motion for relief from the dismissal), there was no evidence of requisite culpability where Defendant reasonably believed (as did the court) that the case had been ?finally adjudicated;? the court also questioned the relevance of the at-issue documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: personnel evaluations, surveys related to promotion

United States v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 09-3073, 2015 WL 5970446 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For defendant?s failure to preserve and produce relevant evidence, copies or versions of which were discovered on a third party?s hard drive (e.g. correspondence between Defendant?s employee and the third party that were not preserved and produced by the defendant), the court found that Plaintiff ?suffered some prejudice? and thus sanctioned Defendant by taking it as ?established fact? that Defendant had similar communications with all of its ?Order Entry Retailers? (of which the relevant third party was one) of the same ?substantive type and quantity? as those discovered on the third party?s hard drive

Nature of Case: FTC Investigation: TCPA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

United States v. Vaugh, No. 14-23 (JLL), 2015 WL 6948577 (D.N.J. Nov. 11, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: In this criminal case, a pro se defendant sought sanctions, including dismissal of the indictment, for the Government?s failure to preserve text messages relevant to its investigation. Upon examination of the facts, including the Government?s acknowledged failure to preserve certain texts and constantly changing explanations surrounding that failure as well as the ?different level of diligence? applied to different text messages (care was taken to preserve messages belonging to a cooperating witness), the court determined sanctions were warranted. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Government would be precluded from using any text messages in its case-in-chief and reserved judgement until trial regarding the propriety of an adverse inference instruction.

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Boxer F2 L.P. v. Flamingo West, Ltd. No. 14?cv?00317?PAB?MJW, 2015 WL 2106101 (D. Colo. May 04, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court said it appreciated defendants? decision to ultimately comply with its discovery obligations by producing 16,600 pages of accounting records the day after the motions hearing on the matter, but said that the untimely disclosure did not have any bearing on the fact that defendants did not allow plaintiffs access to all of their accounting records and altered those records to which they did allow access to conceal material information without valid justification. Finding that defendants acted in bad faith for having failed to comply with three court orders compelling discovery and having done so knowingly and intentionally, court granted motion for sanctions, including adverse inferences and cost and fees.

Nature of Case: Lease

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting records

Tag:Motion for Sanctions