Motion for Sanctions – Page 83 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish plaintiffs? responsibility for destroying or losing any documents and failed to establish prejudice resulting from the loss, the court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and denied defendants? renewed motion for sanctions; in so deciding, court declined to follow the standard for imposing an adverse inference previously set forth in Forest Labs, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009) which held that under some circumstances, ordinary negligence is sufficient culpability to impose an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy adversary proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cencast Servs., LP v. United States, 2010 WL 3488806 (Fed. Cl. Ct. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where data was lost as the result of the theft of a laptop and where hard copy documents were accidentally shredded despite efforts to preserve them safely, the court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference where defendant was ?at most? negligent and an adverse inference would be ?disproportionate to the offense?, where evidence was presented that indicated the requested presumption arising from the adverse inference was untrue, and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate significant prejudice as the result of the loss

Nature of Case: Tax related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop, hard copy

Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and attachments by failing to timely issue a litigation hold and where those emails and attachments were lost as the result of an automatic deletion pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where the court determined the evidence was not ?crucial? to plaintiff?s case and where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of bad faith; court noted that the ruling did not foreclose the possibility that plaintiff could introduce evidence of defendant?s failure to retain relevant documents at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments

Herbert v. Baker, 2010 WL 5330050 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court reversed the order of the Magistrate Judge compelling production of certain videotape where defendant presented evidence that the video in question was not responsive to plaintiff?s narrow request; court denied sanctions where different and relevant video was automatically overwritten before the lawsuit was initiated, where plaintiff presented no evidence of defendant?s notice of litigation, and where the lost video was not the only evidence to support plaintiff?s position

Nature of Case: Claims arising from police department’s alleged failure to prevent an intoxicated person from driving which resulted in death

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference for grossly negligent failure to preserve where defendant?s duty to preserve was triggered by its awareness that its decision to terminate an agreement with plaintiff would trigger litigation but where defendant failed to impose a litigation hold until after plaintiff?s complaint was filed and failed to discontinue its automatic deletion of emails which resulted in the loss of relevant emails; court?s analysis included discussion of prior sanctions against defendant for failure to preserve in Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 WL 1286622 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find County employees culpable for spoliation of ESI, but ordered monetary sanctions against the County for negligently failing to adequately preserve ESI and declined harsher sanctions where many documents were produced in hard copy and thus the resulting prejudice was unclear; court?s analysis of culpability included recognition that the alleged spoliation occurred in 2003-2004, during a time when the law of preservation of ESI was not fully developed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from denial of mass gathering permit

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty to preserve at the time of defendants? destruction of ESI; court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish the relevance of the emails at issue or any prejudice resulting from plaintiff?s failure to produce certain emails, particularly where defendant possessed its own copies; court denied defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer but acknowledged their right to explore plaintiff?s preservation practices at deposition and ordered plaintiff to make a mirror image of her hard drive to be left in the custody of her attorney to assure preservation of ESI

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Tag:Motion for Sanctions