Motion for Sanctions – Page 60 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mayor of Baltimore v. Unisys Corp., No. JKB 12-614, 2013 WL 4833841 (D. Md. Sep. 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied city’s motion for spoliation sanctions, without prejudice, in light of the evidence offered by Unisys that an unadulterated copy of the pre-litigation version of the software still existed; court ordered parties to meet and confer in person to address the issues the city had encountered with the software and reconstructng the testing environment, attempt to resolve defendant’s work product and attorney client privilege claims, and prepare a joint report to the court summarizing the meet and confer

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of express warranties, and intentional misrepresentation claims relating to the development of a tax software system

Electronic Data Involved: Pre-litigation version of the tax software, interim software files, source code

Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 5655984 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual

Master Hand Contractors, Inc. v. Convent of the Sacred Heart of Chicago, No. 1-12-3788, 2013 WL 5940641 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in dismissing mechanics lien case with prejudice as sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations for approximately 18 months and its violations of seven orders of the court, including three expressly final deadlines to produce electronic discovery materials, as the trial court applied progressive discipline to coerce compliance and gave plaintiff ample opportunities to escape possible discovery sanctions; appellate court criticized plaintiff?s approach to the ESI request, ?under which the company owner — who called himself a ?computer idiot? in open court — self-selected emails relating to the Sacred Heart project instead of using a search tool to find them, and printed them out one at a time, all without supervision of counsel.?

Nature of Case: School building construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust v. UBS Real Estate Secs. Inc., No. 12 Civ. 7322(HB)(JCF), 2013 WL 5745855 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court found that U.S. Bank was grossly negligent in failing to institute a litigation hold until eight months after its duty to preserve arose, court denied spoliation sanctions as there was no evidence of bad faith but positive evidence of good faith, and U.S. Bank presented persuasive evidence that no relevant documents were destroyed; court further ruled that litigation hold that U.S. Bank finally did impose was reasonable, as custodians were guided by both business people and counsel as to what to retain and counsel monitored compliance, gathering and reviewing relevant emails in the legal hold folders, substantive emails and attachments were printed out and retained separately and not subject to autodeletion policy

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, declaratory judgment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rodgers v. Rose Party Functions Corp., No. 10-CV-4780 (MKB), 2013 WL 6002375 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendants? duty to preserve video recording of plaintiff?s accident arose well within the two-week period before the video was erased per defendant’s document retention policies, as defendant should have anticipated litigation when defendant?s security personnel arranged for plaintiff to be taken by ambulance to a hospital for treatment of injuries sustained when she slipped, and if not then, the duty ?certainly arose? when plaintiff called defendant?s office manager and it became clear that plaintiff was seeking compensation for her injuries from defendant?s insurer; finding that video recording would have been relevant, court determined that an adverse inference instruction advising the jurors that they may infer that the video recording would have corroborated plaintiff?s allegations and rebutted defendants? assertions would suffice to restore plaintiff to the position she would have been had the recording been preserved

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage capturing plaintiff’s fall in stairwell

In re Heinz, 501 B.R. 746 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court found that evidence compelled conclusion that debtor?s spoliation of electronic evidence, failure to preserve both ESI as well backup paper documentation, and failure to produce thumb drive was willful and intentional given the timing during imminent or ongoing litigation, court declined to impose a specific sanction against the debtor such as a default judgment and instead drew an adverse inference against debtor to the extent it impacted the debtor?s overall credibility; court ultimately found that plaintiffs? claim against the debtor for $39,296, stemming from judgment obtained by plaintiffs against debtor for breach of contract, was not dischargeable

Nature of Case: Complaint to determine dischargeability

Electronic Data Involved: Thumb drive containing financial information from 2009 through 2011

IBM Corp. v. ACS Human Servs., LLC, 999 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded third party some, but not all, of its discovery costs under court rule where court awarded all costs of non-party?s e-discovery vendor ($355,329) and one-half of non-party?s costs for dedicated document review team ($354,070), basing the 50% reduction on non-party?s ?largely unexplained? delay in producing documents and principles of general equity; nor did trial court abuse its discretion when it awarded IBM $425,179 in sanctions against same third party representing some, but not all, attorneys? fees and other costs IBM incurred as a result of non-party?s failure to comply with discovery orders, as court had authority under court rules and its inherent power to issue sanctions against non-parties, non-party?s resistance to or failure to comply with discovery orders was not substantially justified and sanctions were not otherwise unjust, and non-party?s conduct was sanctionable as IBM filed multiple motions to compel, trial court found that non-party?s opposition was not reasonable, and trial court intervened numerous times in the discovery process to secure non-party?s compliance

Nature of Case: IBM and the State of Indiana filed lawsuits against one another related to the State’s Family and Social Services Administration modernization initiatives

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Davis v. Carmel Clay Schools, No. 1:11-cv-00771-SEB-MJD, 2013 WL 5487340 (S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where school did not keep records identifying the individuals who requested that hard drive of camera located inside school bus be removed, nor did school keep logs of who handled and/or viewed such hard drives once they were removed, and hard drive containing video footage of alleged assault was removed from subject school bus and then subsequently reinstalled on a different bus by persons unknown, resulting in overwriting of file containing segment that would have captured alleged assault, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions finding no evidence to support a conclusion that the act of reinserting the hard drive into another bus was undertaken in order to destroy adverse evidence as opposed to its being mere negligence in the handling of the hard drive, and no evidence to support conclusion that any employee of the school manually deleted the video files in an effort to destroy evidence; court would revisit issue if additional evidence came to light

Nature of Case: Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 claims that plaintiff was subject to unlawful peer-on-peer harassment that violated his constitutional rights, and that school failed to properly train its officials in recognizing and responding to sexual assault and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive from video camera installed on school bus where incident allegedly occurred

Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche, No. 2:05-cv-00610-DAE-VCF, 2013 WL 5491952 (D. Nev. Sep. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court adopted magistrate judge?s report and recommendation that plaintiffs? motion for terminating sanctions, based in part on defendants? botched production of database, be denied in light of additional evidence (consisting of supplemental report by defense expert stating that database was not corrupt but merely ?offline,? expert testimony and in-court demonstration of operation of database, and information regarding a prior database crash) presented by the parties after the district court vacated different magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that plaintiffs? motion for terminating sanctions be granted, that defendants? answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against defendants; in light of additional evidence, magistrate judge found that (1) defendants did produce a mirror image of the database as ordered by the court and there was no basis for sanctions, and (2) something done to plaintiffs’ copy of the database after it was provided to plaintiffs caused the error message

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and various state-law claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database

Magnuson v. Newman, No. 10 Civ. 6211(JMF), 2013 WL 5380387 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court observed there was little question that defendants’ disclosures had not included documents that were once in their possession that would be relevant to the case, as they had failed to produce any emails between and among themselves and any drafts of contracts relating to the issues of the lawsuit, court declined to impose discovery sanctions because plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of establishing that defendants had an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time it was destroyed; court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that defendants’ admitted failure to back up their computers or put a litigation hold in place constituted per se gross negligence, and stated that a party?s failure to adopt good preservation practices was one factor in the determination of whether discovery sanctions should issue

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought by a group of television production professionals and companies

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and documents

Tag:Motion for Sanctions