Motion for Sanctions – Page 47 – Electronic Discovery Law

Woodlands Dev. LLC v. Regions Bank, 141 So.3d 357 (La. Ct. App. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Defendant?s case where there was no evidence that Defendant?s document retention policy (which gave employees discretion to determine which emails should be saved and deleted the remainder after 90days) was operated in bad faith and where the potentially relevant emails were already deleted by the time suit was filed, thus lessening (if not eliminating) the impact of the delay in issuing a litigation hold

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment action brought by promissory note maker and guarantors against note holder

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Rodriguez v. City of New York, No. 114739/10, 2014 WL 2438436, May 29, 2014 (unpublished)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s cross-motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction, finding that it was particularly concerning that defendant Department of Education permitted surveillance video depicting at least some of the activity involved in litigation to be taped over where a police investigation immediately ensued, a Notice of Claim was filed by plaintiff, and the faculty of the school thought to view the video soon after the events occurred, and in the case of one teacher, prior to her deposition

Nature of Case: Student assaulted during school field trip sued for inadequate supervision and negligent hiring

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Am. Health, Inc. v. Chevere, No. 12-1678 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (PG), 2014 WL 3955906 (D.P.R. Aug. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that entry of default was too harsh a punishment and that lesser sanction such as an adverse inference instruction was available and adequate to temper prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from individual defendant?s admitted deletion of e-mails containing plaintiff?s confidential information; court further ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs $2,500 for attorneys? fees no later than August 22, 2014

Nature of Case: Claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, and the Wire and Electronic Communications and Interception of Oral Communications Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Ackerman v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-CV-42 (SNR/JSM), 2014 WL 258565 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stewart v. Nucor Corp., No. 3:13-cv-0057-KGB, 2014 WL 12611316 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs answer, enter default judgement and give an adverse inference jury instruction as sanctions for alleged spoliation of video footage. The court held that destruction of the footage was prejudicial to Plaintiff, being the only recording of the accident. Defendant did not have an official retention policy and indicated the video at issue was overwritten ?within weeks of the accident through routine system operation.? However the court did not find Defendant acted in bad faith, and thus denied with prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and enter default judgement. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s request to strike the affirmative defense asserting Plaintiff?s fault as well as the request to prohibit Defendant from mentioning the tape/contents/employee statements regarding the tape during trial. Plaintiff may file a motion in limine to further pursue exclusion of evidence.

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Bailey v. Scoutware, LLC, No. 12-10281, 2014 WL 1118372 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Because defendant was able to examine the subject cell phone with its expert, court ruled that plaintiff should also have the ability to examine the phone to determine if additional relevant text or voicemail messages exist or if there is evidence that text or voicemail messages were deleted, and ordered defendant to produce the current and old cell phones to plaintiff’s expert; court deferred ruling on other requested sanctions as premature and found that neither side was entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion

Nature of Case: Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages and voicemail messages on cell phone of plaintiff’s former co-worker

Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park, No. 13-cv-03323-MMC (JCS), 2014 WL 2567914 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant?s duty to preserve arose upon threat of litigation and where he was reminded of the obligation in correspondence with opposing counsel and then ordered by the court to preserve, the court found that the level of culpability rose with each indication and thus found that the defendant had failed to preserve ESI in bad faith but, absent evidence of the level of resulting prejudice (attempts to recover the deleted data had not yet been undertaken), declined to impose a an adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trade secret, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on multiple devices

Crawford v. City of New London, No. 3:11CV1371 (JBA), 2014 WL 2168430 (D. Conn. May 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not appropriate where original footage on hard drive was recorded over in compliance with standard retention procedures, because: (1) defendants preserved a DVD copy of the video per standard practice, (2) plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the copy was of a lesser quality than the original, other than to allege that it was stored in a format that was inconvenient for enhancement, (3) defendants did not have control over the original security footage nor were they involved in its destruction, (4) recording over original footage occurred long before duty to preserve was triggered, and (5) there was no evidence beyond the fact of destruction itself that would support an inference that the original recording was unfavorable to defendants

Nature of Case: Excessive force claims in connection with plaintiff’s arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing original surveillance footage of plaintiff’s arrest

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court erred in granting remarkable discovery sanctions of procedural “death penalty” together with over $1 million in sanctions against plaintiffs, as destroyed evidence did not go to heart of case, but was, instead, impeachment evidence; record did not reflect the required consideration by trial court of appropriate lesser sanctions or an explanation of why case was exceptional and lesser sanctions would be inadequate; and court wrongly awarded attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs for the entire case rather than those related only to the sanctionable conduct

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Tag:Motion for Sanctions