Key Insight: delayed legal hold and missing metadata caused prejudice; sanctions imposed such that plaintiffs may not use the date in a document to prove document creation date and defendant may offer archived websites from the internet into evidence
Nature of Case: defamation, libel
Electronic Data Involved: websites, emails, metadata
Keywords: metadata, legal hold, spoliation of websites
Key Insight: Lack of prejudice or evidence of intent to deprive. Denied motion for dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e). No evidence that higher quality recordings actually existed and were not preserved.
Nature of Case: Excessive force used during security screening
Electronic Data Involved: closed circuit video recordings
Keywords: preserve video recording, excessive force at the security screening.
Key Insight: Lost ESI claim failed because there was no proof anything was lost and there was no clear duty to preserve.
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: archived email, facebook posts
Keywords: spoliation, lost ESI, duty to preserve
Key Insight: Applying the common law, the court imposed a permissive adverse inference and monetary sanctions for Plaintiff?s spoliation of his cellular phone and its contents where Plaintiff claimed a day before he was scheduled to produce it that he had lost his phone months ago but provided no details regarding the loss or his attempts at preservation or recovery of the phone and where the court concluded that Plaintiff made a ?deliberate choice to withhold [the phone] from production? and that Defendants were prejudiced as a result
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Cellular phone and contents
Key Insight: For Defendants? negligent (or even reckless) failure to preserve relevant video footage following Plaintiff?s release from jail despite the ?distinct possibility? of litigation in light of the injuries Plaintiff suffered while in custody and his specific threats to sue, the court imposed sanctions to redress the prejudice to Plaintiff and ordered that the court would tell the jury that the video was not preserved and that the parties could present evidence and argument regarding that failure for the jury?s consideration
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage from jail
Key Insight: In this insurance litigation, the district court affirmed an order of the magistrate judge requiring Defendant?s counsel to provide additional information regarding the fate of relevant photographs but, upon review of the declaration submitted, found that it did not adequately address the loss and ordered that a representative of Defendant?s IT personnel be deposed; in concluding that a duty to preserve existed prior to Defendant?s ?final? determination regarding the claim, court reasoned in part that Defendant had asserted attorney client privilege with its outside counsel re: ?coverage issues? prior to its final determination and also noted its decision to require Plaintiff to testify under oath, indicating its skepticism of Plaintiff?s claim, and Defendant?s own request for Plaintiff to submit additional evidence, including any pictures
Nature of Case: Insurance litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Photographs
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff in an employment litigation failed to preserve a potentially relevant Facebook post, deleted her work phone before returning it and failed to preserve information contained on numerous other phones (e.g., because they were lost, etc.), court found that ?Plaintiff cannot be relied on to disclose all relevant communications? and granted motion to allow access to the mirror image of a phone belonging to a former employee and co-worker of the plaintiff and to allow defendant to subpoena the former employee to produce a second phone for inspection and ordered production of Plaintiff?s current work phone, to be reviewed by a Special Master for potentially relevant communications, with the cost of the Special Master to be split between the parties ; court found request for dismissal or an adverse inference was premature
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI from cellular phones, Facebook
Key Insight: In response to Plaintiff?s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, the Court engaged in an analysis of four types of available sanctions: Evidentiary, Monetary, Dispositive and Adverse Inference Instructions. The Plaintiff argued the Defendant intentionally destroyed evidence in the form of an incident report, a surveillance video and correspondence between Defendant and a third-party claims adjuster. The Court found that information from the incident report and the lost emails with the claims adjuster were available elsewhere and that the loss of the video surveillance was due to a system-wide outage that affected several stores. The Court found no evidence that Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly and denied Plaintiff?s request for Dispositive Sanctions but instead imposed lesser Evidentiary Sanctions by allowing the Plaintiff to introduce evidence that the incident report was lost or destroyed, that the Defendant failed to preserve the third-party communications and that Defendant?s video system failed to record the incident.
Nature of Case: Slip and Fall
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including video
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought sanctions for a government agency?s failure to preserve and produce emails in response to a Touhy request (an APA action was eventually filed), court denied Plaintiff?s request to depose the Agency?s attorneys as a way to ?replace? the lost information (thus, according to Plaintiff, avoiding further analysis under Rule 37(e)), reasoning that the rule?s Committee Notes appeared to ?contemplate that the ?replacement? of lost information would come from another electronic source,? and declined to impose the requested sanction under any authority (either Rule 37(e) or the court?s inherent authority) where Plaintiff?s requested sanction was not appropriately targeted to the harm claimed and where no prejudice was established
Nature of Case: APA Action related to Touhy request
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: In US litigation, court found no duty to preserve was triggered by Korean Fair Trade Commission?s investigation of price-fixing in Korean markets absent case law establishing such a possibility (i.e., that a foreign investigation of domestic markets could trigger a duty to preserve in the US because litigation could someday be commenced) or any related complaints or lawsuits filed in the US or evidence that the price fixing conspiracy was directed at the US or that the KFTC?s investigation extended to impacts in the United States
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.