Motion for Sanctions – Page 62 – Electronic Discovery Law

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 2072866 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants indicated that a relevant hard drive had crashed and been disposed of but that some relevant information had been recovered and where plaintiff was unable to establish that defendants acted in bad faith, court found defendants were grossly negligent in their failure to preserve the relevant hard drive which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff and ordered a ?spoliation charge? allowing but not requiring the jury to determine whether the spoliation warranted an adverse inference; opinion includes comprehensive discussion of relevant law and standards surrounding spoliation

Nature of Case: Racketeering and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Oyebade v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 1:11-cv-0968-JMS-DML, 2012 WL 4020971 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For a ?pattern of discovery misconduct, including the spoliation of evidence? (an audio tape of a meeting with HR), the court imposed an adverse inference and ordered the jury be instructed that Plaintiff destroyed the audio recording ?under circumstances that suggest that the contents ? would not be helpful in proving his claims? and further ordered that Plaintiff would not be allowed to present evidence regarding the meeting with HR, that the jury be instructed to accept defendant?s evidence about the meeting, and that defendant was entitled to its attorneys fees and expenses incurred in seeking redress for the spoliation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape of meeting with HR

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tabon v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Health Sys. No. 10-cv-2781, 2012 WL 2953216 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Investigation file, original medical records, “comments section” of medical records from computer system

Edwards v. Ford Motor Corp., 2012 WL 553383 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found defendant?s arguments failed to establish undue burden and reasoned that defendant could not escape its discovery obligations ?because it has chosen to store those documents in a way that makes it difficult for Defendant to search for them,? that defendant?s estimations were based on ?a wider scope of documents than what Plaintiff is seeking,? and that defendant failed to provide sufficient detail to evaluate its argument

Electronic Data Involved: Employer issue laptop and contents

Gonzalez v. Las Vegas Police Dept., No. 2:09-cv-00381-JCM-PAL, 2012 WL 1118949 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where video surveillance tape was destroyed in contravention of duty to preserve, the court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions (an adverse inference) where it determined that there was no prejudice to plaintiff because defendants identified the three officers/employees who processed plaintiff on the night of the allegedly wrongful arrest and because defendants conceded that the initial booking processes indicated that plaintiff was not the person sought by the relevant warrant

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights (wrongful arrest) and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg. Sales Practices, and Prods. Liability Litig., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 2146319 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Toyota conducted inspection of relevant Event Data Recorder without providing plaintiffs the opportunity to be present but where there was no showing of actual alteration or deletion of relevant data, court declined to impose terminating sanctions and ordered a cautionary instruction be given to the jury; court also credited plaintiff?s evidence regarding a dispute surrounding the location of a plastic piece in plaintiffs? engine, which was allegedly moved by Toyota representatives during their inspection, and ordered an evidentiary instruction stating that the Toyota representatives testimony regarding the plastic piece should be regarded with ?greater caution? than that of other witnesses

Nature of Case: Personal injury/product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Event Data Recorder data and plastic piece in engine

Perez-Garcia v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., No. 08-1448 (GAG), 2012 WL 2553274 (D.P.R. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found request for sanctions for defendant?s failure to retain records dating back to 1995 was not supported by the rules or the case law on the subject and stated that ?Corporations may maintain their records according to their business practices, so long as the record keeping does not afoul [sic] of the rules outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and judicially created rules of the court.? Addressing plaintiff?s citation to an Eighth Circuit case ?that states that a negative inference can be given when the company?s policy for retention of documents is unreasonable or in bad faith,? (Remington Arms Co. , 836 FRD 1103 (8th Cir. 1988)) the court found that defendant?s policy was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith

Nature of Case: Claims arising from crash of golf cart perhaps related to faulty emergency brake

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Banks v. Enova Fin., No. 10 C 4060, 2012 WL 5995729 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law by ordering that, as a sanction for grossly negligent spoliation of audio tapes pursuant to Defendant?s retention policy, there would be a presumption of a factual dispute at the summary judgment state as to whether Plaintiff hung up on a customer and that if the case proceeded to trial, the court should instruct the jury with a ?spoliation charge? ?not an adverse inference?which would allow but not require the jury to presume that the lost evidence was relevant and favorable to the innocent party; District Court acknowledged that bad faith was necessary to impose an adverse inference, but found that this was not an adverse inference and was therefore within the court?s discretion

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of relevant phone calls

Davis v. Rouse, No. WDQ-08-cv-3106, 2012 WL 3059569 (D. Md. July 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant produced more than 61,000 pages of emails but, when faced with Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, could not explain how the search for ESI had been conducted (by a vendor) and subsequently produced only 11,411 pages of emails after being ordered to re-run the search, the court imposed sanctions of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff?s counsel to review the initial large production of emails containing many non-responsive documents and found counsel for plaintiff was also entitled to recover ?some proportional and reasonable? attorneys? fees and costs for litigating the underlying motion for sanctions which brought the overproduction to light

Nature of Case: Allegations of assault pursuant to 42 USC 1983

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion for Sanctions