Motion for Sanctions – Page 94 – Electronic Discovery Law

Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where forensic examination of defendant?s hard drive revealed the deletion of electronic evidence using wiping software and where at the time of the deletion defendant was subject to a duty to preserve, court declined to impose default judgment but ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Nature of Case: Claims of fraud, misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drive

Consol. Edison CO. of NY, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. U.S., 2009 WL 3418533 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In very long and complicated tax litigation, court found no spoliation absent a duty to preserve where, at the time the data was lost due to migration to a new email system, plaintiffs were involved in routine audit and administrative procedures likely to resolve the relevant dispute and thus had no reason to believe litigation would necessarily ensue (?Indeed, not every dispute with the IRS leads to litigation or ?anticipates? litigation); where counsel provided contradictory statements as to whether litigation was anticipated such that a duty to preserve would have arisen, court determined counsel was essentially unreliable and thus relied on ?other testimony or exhibits? and relied on counsel?s testimony only ?sparingly, when it was uncontested?

Nature of Case: Tax litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

In re Krause, 2009 WL 5064348 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: On appeal, court upheld sanctions for intentional spoliation and other misconduct, including seizure of debtor?s passport and partial summary judgment, where such sanctions were within the discretion of the court and warranted by debtor?s behavior

Nature of Case: Government brought adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor to except his tax debt from discharge and declare various entities his alter ego

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, email

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Ridge Chrysler Jeep, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Americas LLC, 516 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Seventh Circuit upheld trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as sanction for flagrant discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Dealerships sued for breach of contract and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 2008 WL 4442571 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where parties submitted competing expert testimony in support of and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court also considered and ruled upon parties’ cross-motions to exclude their opponent’s computer forensics expert under FRE 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and USB flash-drive device

Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

Willeford v. Toys ?R? US-Del., Inc., 895 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld order of contempt and declined to expand protective order to keep confidential names and contact information of persons involved in falling merchandise accidents where defendant?s challenges of discovery rulings resulted in five year delay, were not in good faith, and information sought to be protected was not the sort that should be covered by a protective order

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:Motion for Sanctions