Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: Where defendant lost relevant text messages while trying to transfer them to from his phone to his computer during the time when he had an obligation to preserve them, court found that the loss was negligent?a level of culpability sufficient to impose sanctions?and that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the messages would have supported Plaintiff?s claims and found that ?an adverse inference instruction is the most appropriate sanction to be imposed?

Nature of Case: Fraud, RICO, unfair trade practices and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s motion for sanctions court laid out relevant law of spoliation and found that defendants had a duty to preserve relevant evidence but declined to impose sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that allegedly spoliated emails were relevant; where plaintiff failed to establish that additional SERT video existed or was relevant to his claims; and where plaintiff failed to establish prejudice from unproduced booking video, particularly where he presented conflicting assertions regarding its relevance (where he at once moved to preclude presentation of evidence related to the underlying offense or arrest and sought sanctions for the booking video?s spoliation)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, video

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant?s automatic purge of contents from a relevant website following closure of bidding process, court found defendant was on notice of obligation to preserve by virtue of Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring preservation of ?all the contract documents associated with procurement,? that the United States had been negligent in failing to preserve the information, and that plaintiff was prejudiced and, focusing on the need to impose the least harsh sanction, ordered that defendant would be prohibited from relying upon any secondary evidence regarding what Plaintiff saw on the relevant website (the question of what Plaintiff saw on the website and therefore what Plaintiff knew was a major issue in the case)

Nature of Case: Pre-award bid protest

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of website used to submit bids

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Key Insight: Where employee ?at the heart of Plaintiff?s claims of discrimination and harassment? ?misunderstood the requirements of the litigation hold? and continued his practice of deleting all emails every day but claimed that he never received or erased any emails related to plaintiff?s lawsuit and that all of his sent emails were preserved (as were the emails sent to him from his managers because of their compliance with the litigation hold), court found the deletions were negligent and ordered an instruction that the emails were destroyed and would have been favorable to plaintiff?s case

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference for trial where defendant was grossly negligent in its destruction of relevant emails (as proven by Plaintiff?s receipt of relevant emails from third parties that should have been in defendant?s possession, for example, and defendant?s failure to dispute the existence of certain emails which were relevant to plaintiff?s claims but which were not produced); court found defendant was ?at least negligent? in its failure to preserve (and later found that defendant was grossly negligent) where the city had no formal email retention policy and instead relied on its employees to determine what to save: ?Because the City has effectively conceded that it had a duty to preserve the e-mails in question, its failure to maintain a formal e-mail retention policy was at least negligent.?

Nature of Case: Violation of constitutionally protected property rights based on Stop Work Order

Electronic Data Involved: ESI