Motion for Sanctions – Page 49 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Eight Circuit found no abuse of discretion where, for a second time, after remand, trial court concluded that dismissal of complaint was appropriate sanction for plaintiff?s ?consistently evasive and deceptive conduct,? as the record was now adequately set forth and supported the trial court?s judgment regarding the questions of bad faith, plaintiffs? control over accountant witness who disappeared, and the intentional (versus negligent) nature of the ongoing and systematic suppression of evidence by plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Contract and fraud claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial records maintained on plaintiffs’ accountant’s computer; computers

M Seven Sys. Ltd. v. Leap Wireless Int?l, Inc., No. 12cv01424 CAB (RBB), 2014 WL 3942200 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt for failing to all historical versions of source code for each cell phone model at issue, finding that magistrate judge’s discovery order did not preclude more than one reasonable interpretation of its scope, that defendants reasonably interpreted and substantially complied with the order by producing every version of the source code that they possessed

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, violation of California Penal Code ? 502, unfair competition, civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets, and civil conspiracy to unfairly compete

Electronic Data Involved: Various versions of source code

Black Diamond Mining Co. v. Genser, No. 12-125-ART, 2014 WL 3611329 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court addressed motion for sanctions and found that accused spoliators had acted intentionally and/or negligently, but not in bad faith; court found that sanctions were ?unwarranted? for the negligent loss of certain email attachments because of defendant?s failure to ?access documents in an archive while gathering the original emails?- even despite finding that defendant acted with a ?culpable state of mind? – where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the attachments? relevance (court noted that defendant did not ?actively delete the attachments? but rather its agents ?forgot to take steps to preserve the documents before they were deleted from the archive?); for individual actors? negligent and intentional failures to preserve ESI and hard copy documents, the court found that the ?test of relevance [was] satisfied? and imposed a permissive adverse inference, but declined to order reimbursement of the Trustee?s fees or the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments, ESI, hard copy

Griffin v. New Prime Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01926-WSD, 2014 WL 212537 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based on defendants’ alleged destruction of tractor-trailer’s black box data denied where data was lost when tow-truck operator, with the Georgia State Patrol’s consent, moved the tractor-trailer forward to separate it from another vehicle shortly after the accident, and plaintiffs offered no evidence to suggest that defendants knowingly moved the tractor-trailer forward or purposely failed to preserve the “black box” data

Nature of Case: Traffic accident

Electronic Data Involved: Black box data on tractor-trailer involved in accident

Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., No. 12 Civ. 592(DAB)(JLC), 2014 WL 3610946 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for spoliation of contents of Plaintiff?s work laptop (by deleting the data and reissuing the computer to another employee) where despite the court?s finding that defendant had been grossly negligent in its failure to preserve, a presumption of relevance was not warranted and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the lost documents would have supported his claim; regarding the destruction of plaintiff?s supervisor?s laptop (who had resigned), the court ordered an adverse inference where the court found that the failure to preserve was grossly negligent and where defendant?s conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a finding that the evidence was unfavorable to it (notably, the court indicated it ?[did] not matter? who had wiped the hard drive because defendant should have taken steps to preserve the data well in advance of the supervisor?s resignation); court ordered an adverse inference for defendant?s failure to produce certain evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s laptop and supervisor’s laptop

Vicente v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC, 2014 WL 3939277 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where city notified key personnel to preserve relevant evidence but never instructed its IT department to suspend automatic procedure for eliminating deleted emails after 30 days or to assist key individuals in collecting and preserving relevant emails, city?s preservation efforts were “clearly deficient? but no sanctions were warranted as plaintiffs identified only one email that ultimately was lost as a result of defendants? inadequate preservation actions; court further granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of unredacted versions of two litigation hold letters sent by the city to employees, and ruled on various other dispositive and discovery motions

Nature of Case: First Amendment, retaliation, defamation and related state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Curtin v. Blair Bros. Contracting, Inc., No. 2012-1082, 2014 WL 4695980 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 28, 2014) (unreported)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants asserted they received only a “handful” of emails and argued that plaintiffs destroyed or otherwise failed to preserve relevant emails, court denied defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, finding that defendants failed to prove that the subject emails ever actually existed; court further rejected defense argument that missing emails were relevant to their counterclaim, observing that, to the extent the counterclaim sought payment for ?extras? performed by defendants, defendants presumably had their own records to support the counterclaim and did not need to rely on emails exchanged between plaintiffs and their architect, therefore even if spoliation did take place, the defendants were not prejudiced thereby

Nature of Case: Claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and conversion arising from residential construction

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lozoya v. Allphase Landscape Constr., Inc., No. 12-cv-1048-JLK, 2014 WL 222068 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In case where defendants estimated: (1) production costs for discovery from computers and smart phones would run $35,000 to $45,000 for uploading and processing of data, and (2) plaintiffs’ potential recovery as between $10,350 to $29,700, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel finding that plaintiffs’ conduct was far more accommodating and professional than defendants’ and that production in Bates numbered .pdf format would not place undue burden on defendants

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, texts

Clemons v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-339, 1:11-cv-340, 2014 WL 3507299 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant attempted to preserve relevant video by assigning a part time maintenance/IT employee to copy the relevant portion but failed to discover that the wrong portion was copied before the tape was overwritten, the Magistrate Judge found that the failure to preserve the relevant footage was grossly negligent and recommended a mandatory adverse inference, that defendant be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony from witnesses who viewed the unavailable footage and that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney?s fees; the district court adopted the recommendations

Nature of Case: Claims of deliberate indifference to prisoner’s medical needs

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion for Sanctions