Motion for Sanctions – Page 50 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

EEOC v. Suntrust Bank, No. 8:12-cv-1325-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 1364982 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice EEOC?s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, indicating it may consider this ruling at a later date if presented with further evidence tending to show bad faith conduct by SunTrust; court would permit the EEOC to introduce evidence at trial concerning SunTrust?s video surveillance system, SunTrust?s policies relating to use and preservation of video surveillance footage, and SunTrust?s failure to preserve video footage at issue, where Suntrust isolated and carefully reviewed tapes to investigate (and partly validate) one plaintiff?s claims, but then put that same footage back into circulation to be taped over and did not retain or preserve the footage

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage from bank’s security cameras

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Schulman v. Saloon Beverage, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-193, 2014 WL 1516326 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants cooperated with Vermont Department of Liquor Control investigation and with their insurer and supplied records to the apparent satisfaction of both, and produced facially complete 62-page check detail, but failed to preserve the original ESI after filing for bankruptcy and closing business, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse inference instruction since failure to preserve was not deliberate or in bad faith and plaintiffs’ claimed prejudice was based on conjecture; however, because plaintiffs were prejudiced to the extent they could not explore possibility of fabrication or tampering with printout of check details, court would allow evidence of destruction of ESI in its original format to be admitted at trial

Nature of Case: Dram Shop Act and common law claims alleging that defendants’ sale of beer to individual caused head-on collision between individual’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on restaurant’s computers in its original format

Shaw Group Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257-JJB-RLB, 2014 WL 1891543 (M.D. La. May 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had failed to obey previous discovery orders by not timely searching for and producing ESI in response to plaintiff’s requests for production and that defendant?s representations regarding compliance were not completely correct, court once again ordered defendant to produce complete responses, without objections or redactions, ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s expenses incurred in filing second motion, and ordered parties to endeavor to agree on search terms to be used to obtain responsive ESI; in the event parties could not agree to search terms, custodians and date ranges, then defendant must use those proposed by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Slep-Tone Entm?t Corp. v. Granito, No. CV 12-298 TUC DCB, 2014 WL 65297 (D. Ariz. Jan. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant used special software to erase computer hard drives that allegedly contained infringing karaoke accompaniment tracks marked with plaintiffs’ registered trademarks, court determined that defendant acted willfully in destroying the evidence, which he knew to be especially relevant, and that his admitted spoliation of evidence severely impaired the plaintiffs’ ability to litigate the case; accordingly, court denied defendant?s motion for summary judgment based on lack of evidence, and granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on issue of liability, instructing that plaintiffs must still prove up damages

Nature of Case: Trademark and tradedress infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Unauthorized counterfeit duplicates of karaoke accompaniment tracks on hard drives

Peerless Ind., Inc. v. Crimson AV LLC, No. 11 C 1768, 2014 WL 3497697 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court judge adopted magistrate judge’s 2/27/2014 Report and Recommendations, except to the extent it found plaintiff had complied with prior discovery orders, and as sanction for failure to comply with orders, ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees associated with briefing and hearings; judge further adopted in full magistrate judge’s 3/13/2014 Report and Recommendation which found that defendant failed to preserve or produce all documents it should have and recommended burden-shifting sanction rather than adverse inference instruction; judge awarded plaintiff its reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees associated with its motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and various violations of Illinois law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tedeschi v. Kason Credit Corp, No. 3:10CV00612 DJS, 2014 WL 1491173 (D. Conn. Apr. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference based on defendant’s failure to preserve printouts from its computer system, finding that defendant did not have a duty to preserve printouts so long as the electronic files themselves were preserved

Nature of Case: Claims under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Printed fact sheets that showed collection activity maintained on defendant’s computer system

Tag:Motion for Sanctions