Motion for Sanctions – Page 54 – Electronic Discovery Law

Espejo v. Lockheed Martin Operations Support, Inc., No. 14-000095 HG-RLP, 2014 WL 6634492 (D. Haw. Nov. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff ran software to permanently erase all information on his computer then drilled a hole in his hard drive and threw it away, and completely erased and reformatted all data on recording device, and most of recordings produced by plaintiff had been edited, all at a time when plaintiff knew he had an obligation to preserve evidence, court found that plaintiff engaged in willful spoliation of highly relevant evidence, that plaintiff acted in bad faith, that defendants were severely prejudiced by the loss of evidence, that less drastic sanctions would not sufficiently compensate for plaintiff’s widespread destruction of evidence and that, given the extensive spoliation of relevant evidence by plaintiff, it would not be possible to fairly evaluate the case on the merits; court concluded that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction

Nature of Case: Retaliation and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s personal computer, email, recordings made by plaintiff of his interactions with other employees

IQ Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., No. 01-13-00952-CV, 2014 WL 6601148 (Tex. App. Nov. 20, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where hard copy closing file itself was destroyed, but defendants electronically preserved the closing file in two different storage systems, FileStor and SureClose, appellate court found that trial court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Real estate dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Closing file, title commitment

Olney v. Job.com, No. 1:12-cv-01724-LJO-SKO, 2014 WL 5430350 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff willfully and deliberately spoliated relevant data on his computer through use of deletion programs after the duty to preserve had been triggered, magistrate judge declined to impose sanction of dismissal given that the interests of expeditious resolution had not been thwarted by plaintiff’s conduct, litigation had not been unnecessarily protracted, management of the court’s docket had not been disrupted, and although the spoliation had prejudiced defendants in presenting a full defense, a strongly worded adverse inference instruction was an alternative, less severe sanction that would adequately address defendants’ harm; court set out text of adverse inference instruction to be given to the jury and awarded defendants their reasonable attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Class action seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on plaintiff’s computer hard drive

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker, No. 05-13-00724-CV, 2014 WL 6065713 (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant?s inability to produce additional communications – which defendant had explained were not available because defendant had replaced its servers and had not backed-up the data – because there was no proof that defendant intentionally concealed evidence or that the spoliation irreparably deprived plaintiff of any meaningful ability to present its claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from misappropriation of over $8 million in load proceeds designated to fund a series of residential loan transactions

Electronic Data Involved: Email

James v. Nat?l Fin. LLC, No. 8931-VCL, 2014 WL 6845560 (Del. Ch. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to provide all the information required by the court’s first discovery order, then failed to comply with second discovery order that required production of an updated spreadsheet with an affidavit from defendant?s IT consultant explaining how the consultant extracted data from defendant’s systems and imported the data into the updated spreadsheet, and where defendant made numerous misrepresentations to plaintiff and to the court regarding the data and defendant?s efforts to comply with the orders, court declined to enter default judgment as a discovery sanction and instead ordered that certain facts adverse to defendant were to be deemed established; court further awarded plaintiff her expenses, including attorneys? fees, to be paid by both defendant and its counsel

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging that defendant’s loan practices were unconscionable and its loan terms unenforceable

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet containing loan history information

Ablan v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 11 CV 4493, 2014 WL 6704293 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, district court granted defendants? motion to strike plaintiffs? additional damages claim as sanction for plaintiffs? tardy production of documents relating to additional damages claim, which production occurred more then three months after discovery period closed, as plaintiffs offered no justification for failing to timely produce the documents and defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiffs were allowed to rely on the new evidence to defeat summary judgment or at trial; court further awarded defendants their attorneys? fees incurred in filing the motion, but denied defendants? request for expert costs associated with reviewing the new information because defendants? experts would have reviewed any new information even if it had been timely, and there was no evidence that defendants? experts had to revise their expert reports due to the belated production, and therefore no excess expert costs resulted from the late production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents on eight CD-ROMS

UMG Recording, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 8407, 2014 WL 5089743 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions for Defendants? bad faith deletion of relevant records related to uploading infringing materials to its music distribution service despite a duty to preserve and found that Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law that certain defendants illegally uploaded infringing materials; for culpable spoliation of source code, including by failing to preserve relevant data stored on a backup server when the lease on that server expired, court found that defendants were precluded from raising one of their substantive defenses to plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp v. Banco BRJ S.A., 11-CV-1529 (KMW) 2014 WL 7051380 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court found Plaintiff committed spoliation when a computer containing key documents was destroyed. Court imposed sanctions of precluding evidence derived from the computer from being presented at trial and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney fees and costs. Upon review, Court upheld the spoliation ruling but imposed a mandatory adverse inference instead of the preclusion order. Court agreed that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve, was culpable in the destruction of the evidence, and the data that was destroyed was relevant to the Defendant?s claims. The court further elaborated that Plaintiff?s duty to preserve did not end when the computer allegedly crashed, and that Plaintiff should have made reasonable efforts to recover the data it contained. Saying that the spoliation prejudiced the defendant in a ?severe way? that can only be corrected by a ?substantial sanction,? the Court found that a mandatory adverse inference was the best way to repair the damage to Defendant without being a ?harsh measure given the extent of Plaintiff?s reliance of the documents??

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of “crashed” laptop computer

Abdulahi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1393 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was fired for failure to lock a gate?which he disputed?during the pendency of separate EEOC investigations into plaintiff?s charges of discrimination and where the at-issue manager claimed to have viewed footage confirming the gate was unlocked but failed to preserve it, the court determined that Defendant was under a duty to preserve (?due to an ongoing EEOC investigation during the applicable time period, Wal-Mart?s own investigation into the alleged employee misconduct including a review of the video footage, and litigation being reasonably foreseeable?), that plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss because neither the at-issue manager?s testimony or emails were equivalents for the video, and that plaintiff showed ?more than mere negligence? in the destruction, the court ordered an adverse inference creating a presumption that ?Wal-Mart?s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual and that retaliation was the but-for cause of Plaintiff?s termination? and awarded attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Savage v. City of Lewisburg, No. 1:10?0120, 2014 WL 6827329 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2014 )

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court said that where Defendant was under a duty to preserve audio recordings and should have taken steps to prevent their destruction; and where Defendant refused to produce payroll and promotion data ordered by the court; and where Defendant had not produced documents ordered by the court; Plaintiff would be permitted to argue adverse inferences to the jury and file an affidavit of reasonable costs and attorneys? fees in bringing its sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings, payroll and promotion data, documents

Tag:Motion for Sanctions