Motion for Sanctions – Page 65 – Electronic Discovery Law

Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks

Dent v. Siegelbaum, No. DKC 08-0886, 2012 WL 718835 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court did not err in denying plaintiff?s request for a spoliation instruction with respect to digital pictures taken of plaintiff which were deleted when a defendant (a police officer) connected the camera to his computer for uploading where there was no evidence ? to prove, or even suggest? that the officer intended to destroy the pictures and where ?a culpable state of mind? was a necessary element to be proven by a party seeking such sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photos

Pursuit Partners, LLC v. UBS AG, No. FSTX08CV084013452, 2012 WL 1624242 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Apr. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff had violated a court order compelling production of responsive materials, as evidenced by the production of additional responsive documents from other witnesses and by plaintiff?s agent?s inability to relate his process for identifying and collecting responsive information, but declined to order the case dismissed and instead ordered plaintiff to ?once again respond to each discovery request? and outlined what information should be tracked with regard to those efforts

Nature of Case: Claims concerning the purchase of several collateralized debt obligations (CDO’S) by the plaintiffs which resulted in a substantial loss as a result of the credit ratings downgrades in the market

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adkins v. Wolever, —F.3d—, 2012 WL 3711433 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where District Court held that because defendant, a prison guard, did not have control over the preservation of relevant surveillance footage there was no basis to establish his culpability for its loss and thus spoliation sanctions were not warranted, the appellate court acknowledged that other circuits had imposed sanctions for a prison?s loss of relevant footage but determined the case law did not require a finding of negligence for such loss and that, even if the appellate court were to disagree with the District Court?s determination, the conclusion was not ?clearly erroneous?; court spoke to concerns that this would provide carte blanche for prisons? destruction of such footage, but found that imposing a burden upon individual defendant?s to ensure that their employer (the prison) was preserving evidentiary records for every incident with a prisoner was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Action brought by prisoner for injury allegedly inflicted by prison guard

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Augstein v. Leslie, No. 11 Civ 7512(HB), 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where a major question in the case was what defendant?s hard drive contained at the time it was returned to him and where defendant sent that hard drive to the manufacturer and received a replacement during a time when he was ?on notice? that the information may be relevant to future litigation, the court found that defendant was at least negligent in his handling of the drive and imposed an adverse inference which allowed the assumption that the drive contained the at-issue intellectual property at the time it was returned by the plaintiff to the police

Nature of Case: Action to collect reward offered for return of laptop and its contents

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

YCB Int?l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., No. 09-CV-7221, 2012 WL 3069683 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs failed to take appropriate steps to preserve information, including failing to suspend their document destruction policy and failing to issue a litigation hold, which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents (but, as the court concluded, not ESI), the court declined to impose drastic sanctions but recommended that the jury be instructed about the failure to preserve (but not instructed to draw any inferences based on that destruction) and recommended that plaintiffs be ordered to pay $1000 to defendant to ?partially compensate? it for attorneys? fees incurred by its motion and to pay $1000 to the court clerk

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy inspection reports

Vanliner Ins. Co. v. ABF Freight Syst., Inc., No. 5:11-cv-122-Oc-10TBS, 2012 WL 750743 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding that the alleged spoliator had no notice of the potential relevance of the allegedly spoliated data and that the information?namely maintenance records?was available elsewhere, court concluded that he moving party failed to establish that the data at issue was ?crucial? to its case and denied motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Engine related data from Electronic Control Module (e.g., the speed of the tractor/trailer, the rotation of RPMs of the engine)

Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 1414070 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had ?practical ability? to obtain documents from third-party consultant, and thus ?control? of the documents for purposes of discovery, but declined to impose sanctions, despite finding that plaintiff had failed to issue a litigation hold letter and to ensure that its consultant?s records were being preserved, where investigation revealed that limited responsive documents were recovered from the consultant?s backup tapes and that only one was never produced and thus, plaintiff and its consultant had rebutted the suggestion that defendant was prejudiced; affirmed by District Court 2012 WL 1849101

Nature of Case: claims arising from construction contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Estate of Carlock v. Williamson, No. 08-3075, 2012 WL 3878595 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions and for appointment of special master absent evidence that allegedly relevant audio and video were lost in bad faith and where, despite ?concern? over loss of emails resulting from failure to timely suspend automatic deletions, the court ?[did] not find that relevant evidence was destroyed? and further indicated doubt that relevant emails existed; court further found that failure to suspend automatic deletions was merely negligent and not in bad faith; as to unsearched hard drives, court noted that the parties had already expended a large amount of time and money searching for relevant deleted evidence to no avail and that in light of doubts that relevant email ever existed, there was ?nothing to gain by searching those hard drives?

Nature of Case: Death of inmate while incarcerated

Electronic Data Involved: Audio, video, emails, hard drives

Mahaffey v. Marriot Int?l, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4833370 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of video tape and hard copy where, as to the video tape, the court determined that defendant ?could not reasonably have known? that it had an obligation to preserve the at-issue video at the time it was destroyed, and that no sanctions were therefore merited and where, as to the hard copy documents, the plaintiff was unable to establish that the at-issue documents actually existed or that, if they did, they were destroyed with the requisite culpable state of mind (where the alleged spoliation resulted from a broken sprinkler which flooded a storage room), and where even if defendant had been negligent, plaintiff could not establish that the allegedly destroyed evidence was relevant to his claims

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from alleged elevator accident

Electronic Data Involved: Video, hard copy

Tag:Motion for Sanctions