Motion for Sanctions – Page 98 – Electronic Discovery Law

Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Remanding case for new trial on other grounds, appellate court noted that trial court may have committed an error of law, in analyzing plaintiff?s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for government?s failure to preserve email, by equating the intentional conduct necessary for such an instruction with bad faith; appellate court would leave it to trial court to consider request for adverse inference instruction on remand, but observed that (even absent a court order) the duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before litigation when party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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

Wong v. Thomas, 2008 WL 4224923 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2008) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants were able to produce responsive emails from plaintiff?s email account, but could produce no other emails from accounts of various defendants or from Department of State due to routine ?purging? procedures that included closing individuals’ email accounts, deletion of files from their office computers after they leave employment, and routine deletion of files from State’s email servers, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions finding that defendants had acted in good faith and that plaintiff had not met threshold showing of relevancy of any specific evidence that was lost

Nature of Case: Discrimination based on race and national origin, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Sanction of dismissal not warranted where data stored on dive computers was lost when it could no longer be downloaded after one year, since plaintiff did not engage in deliberate destruction, she did not know whether data was helpful or hurtful to her case because she had not seen it, and she had not known that data would automatically become unavailable for download after one year; defendant?s entitlement to alternative relief to be decided at trial; court further granted plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant?s counterclaims for ?fraud on the court? and ?spoliation of evidence?

Nature of Case: Negligence, product liability, wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Dive information stored on VR3 dive computers

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Wells v. Berger, Newmark & Fenchel, P.C., 2008 WL 4365972 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting in part motion in limine seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence where defendants did nothing to preserve key player?s computer files but instead allowed him to continue using computer without monitoring, copying, reviewing or securing potentially relevant information, and key player admitted deleting potentially relevant files, court set out statement that would be read to jury concerning defendants? failure to preserve evidence and prohibited defendants from offering any argument or comments suggesting that lack of pornographic emails in evidence supported a finding that such emails never existed or were never shown to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, constructive discharge, emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Pornographic emails, hard drive

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2008 WL 4693374 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered production of a 30(b)(6) deponent with sufficient knowledge of designated topics and monetary sanctions against defendant where defendants? designated deponent was unable to answer ?the most basic questions? regarding defendants? response to discovery including what computers were searched for documents, what backup tapes or other media was searched, and what backup media was utilized by the company; court stated that deponent had obligation to educate self on designated issues prior to deposition

Nature of Case: Statutory Action arising from 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 (Wiretapping)

Electronic Data Involved: Testimony from 30(b)(6) deponent regarding discovery responses

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, 2008 WL 4786621 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2008) (Not for Citation)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce website information because the information was maintained by and in the custody of a third party internet service provider, and because defendant could not access the materials because its account had expired, court acknowledged general rule that ?production is not ordered unless the responding party has exclusive control of the documents? and plaintiff?s failure to subpoena third party directly but nonetheless ordered defendants to ?take all necessary steps to obtain the requested documents? from third party and for the parties to split the cost

Nature of Case: Misappropriate of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Website

Tag:Motion for Sanctions