Motion for Sanctions – Page 94 – Electronic Discovery Law

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assoc., Inc., 2009 WL 1258970 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, despite plaintiffs? failure to specify each technology individually, plaintiffs? preservation order was deemed sufficient because the instructions to preserve utilized terminology customarily used within the company to refer a category of technologies, including those at issue, court nonetheless ordered parties to negotiate stipulated Preservation Order going forward; court ordered monetary sanctions for failure to preserve prior employee?s notebook, but declined to order sanctions for plaintiff?s alleged instructions to employees to delete emails absent evidence that employees willfully deleted emails after the preservation order was issued and where one employee at issue testified that emails subject to preservation were not among those deleted and where a second employee at issue deleted emails prior to duty to preserve and subsequently located back up drive with substantial number of non-email documents

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants repeatedly represented they had searched for and produced all relevant and available emails and also represented that some documents had been deleted ?per agency practice? before notice of litigation, but where defendants later found backup tapes containing thousands of responsive emails following plaintiff?s filing of a motion for sanctions, court rejected the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) noting that ?defendants were unable to provide electronically stored information only because they had not searched all of the available files.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Reeves v. Case W. Univ., 2009 WL 3242049 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where it remained ?entirely unclear? that defendant performed a ?full and thorough search? for responsive ESI, court ordered defendant to perform a ?comprehensive examination of all electronic storage? and to provide certification of the search to plaintiff; as sanction for ?failing to even search for certain evidence,? court prohibited defendant from re-filing its motion for summary judgment as to two of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Peterson v. Tri-Country Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 2008 WL 723521 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence

Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes

Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2008 WL 4850116 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered only an inference that evidence was destroyed based on ?the mere lack of evidence? produced by defendant and where plaintiffs failed to take timely action to address discovery disputes, court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation; addressing plaintiffs? argument that defendant?s failure to issue a timely litigation hold notice resulted in destruction of evidence, court noted, ?[w]hile a party must ?put in place a ?litigation hold? to ensure the preservation of relevant documents, there is no requirement that it must be written.? [citation omitted]

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

Sharp v. City of Palatka, 2008 WL 89762 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: No adverse inference warranted for alleged spoliation of audio recordings, since plaintiff failed to establish first element that recordings ever existed; however, plaintiff would be free to elicit testimony concerning the alleged recordings at trial

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of two conversations

Whitney v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2008 WL 2156324 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where handwritten IIR was included with numerous other similar documents and destroyed en masse by airline under document retention policy, court found that, although there was a ?disturbing amount of carelessness on defendant’s part? in its retention and production of the IIRs, plaintiff had not demonstrated that handwritten IIR would have been favorable to her case or that she was prejudiced by its absence; accordingly, court declined to impose any spoliation sanctions but awarded plaintiff her fees and costs in connection with motion

Nature of Case: Airline passenger allegedly injured by another passenger sued airline claiming negligent failure to protect and gross negligence

Electronic Data Involved: Original handwritten ?Inflight Irregularity Report? and conflicting electronic versions of same

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2008 WL 3851957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court overruled Spain’s objections to Magistrate Judge?s various orders of November 3, 2006, January 25, 2007 and June 6, 2007

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion for Sanctions