Spoliation – Page 45 – Electronic Discovery Law

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker, No. 05-13-00724-CV, 2014 WL 6065713 (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant?s inability to produce additional communications – which defendant had explained were not available because defendant had replaced its servers and had not backed-up the data – because there was no proof that defendant intentionally concealed evidence or that the spoliation irreparably deprived plaintiff of any meaningful ability to present its claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from misappropriation of over $8 million in load proceeds designated to fund a series of residential loan transactions

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Black Diamond Mining Co. v. Genser, No. 12-125-ART, 2014 WL 3611329 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court addressed motion for sanctions and found that accused spoliators had acted intentionally and/or negligently, but not in bad faith; court found that sanctions were ?unwarranted? for the negligent loss of certain email attachments because of defendant?s failure to ?access documents in an archive while gathering the original emails?- even despite finding that defendant acted with a ?culpable state of mind? – where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the attachments? relevance (court noted that defendant did not ?actively delete the attachments? but rather its agents ?forgot to take steps to preserve the documents before they were deleted from the archive?); for individual actors? negligent and intentional failures to preserve ESI and hard copy documents, the court found that the ?test of relevance [was] satisfied? and imposed a permissive adverse inference, but declined to order reimbursement of the Trustee?s fees or the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments, ESI, hard copy

Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 12 C 771, 2014 WL 37843 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Videotape of collision filmed from train was admissible, despite inability of defendant to produce the hard drive from which it originally was copied, where both eyewitness testimony which corroborated the footage and chain of custody evidence established its authenticity; no spoliation sanctions for reuse of hard drive where such reuse was a ?routine practice? for defendant and because plaintiff could not establish prejudice resulting from the loss of the hard drive (the video was available)

Nature of Case: Personal injury (train/car collision)

Electronic Data Involved: Original hard drive containing video footage

Miller v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 49A02-1307-PL-619, 2014 WL 1318698 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Although there may have remained a genuine issue of material fact concerning spoliation based on employer’s failure to preserve contents of employee?s computer or make a complete archival backup of the contents when the computer was replaced, summary judgment in favor of the employers was properly granted since the employers were immune from the claims under Section 230(c) of the federal Communications Decency Act as providers of an interactive computer service (i.e., company network and access to internet)

Nature of Case: Individual alleged defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against employers of authors of anonymous comments posted regarding online article

Electronic Data Involved: Comments posted regarding online article; contents of computer used by author of comments

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court erred in granting remarkable discovery sanctions of procedural “death penalty” together with over $1 million in sanctions against plaintiffs, as destroyed evidence did not go to heart of case, but was, instead, impeachment evidence; record did not reflect the required consideration by trial court of appropriate lesser sanctions or an explanation of why case was exceptional and lesser sanctions would be inadequate; and court wrongly awarded attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs for the entire case rather than those related only to the sanctionable conduct

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Eight Circuit found no abuse of discretion where, for a second time, after remand, trial court concluded that dismissal of complaint was appropriate sanction for plaintiff?s ?consistently evasive and deceptive conduct,? as the record was now adequately set forth and supported the trial court?s judgment regarding the questions of bad faith, plaintiffs? control over accountant witness who disappeared, and the intentional (versus negligent) nature of the ongoing and systematic suppression of evidence by plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Contract and fraud claims

Electronic Data Involved: Financial records maintained on plaintiffs’ accountant’s computer; computers

Ablan v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 11 CV 4493, 2014 WL 6704293 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, district court granted defendants? motion to strike plaintiffs? additional damages claim as sanction for plaintiffs? tardy production of documents relating to additional damages claim, which production occurred more then three months after discovery period closed, as plaintiffs offered no justification for failing to timely produce the documents and defendants would be prejudiced if plaintiffs were allowed to rely on the new evidence to defeat summary judgment or at trial; court further awarded defendants their attorneys? fees incurred in filing the motion, but denied defendants? request for expert costs associated with reviewing the new information because defendants? experts would have reviewed any new information even if it had been timely, and there was no evidence that defendants? experts had to revise their expert reports due to the belated production, and therefore no excess expert costs resulted from the late production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents on eight CD-ROMS

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 6:11-md-2299, 2014 WL 355995 (W.D. La. Jan. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Despite defendants? claims that litigation regarding claims of bladder cancer were not reasonably foreseeable until 2011, and thus the preservation obligation did not attach as to evidence related to those claims, the court found that the duty to preserve began in 2002, when defendants disseminated a broad and general litigation hold requiring the preservation of documents and ESI which ?discuss, mention, or relate to Actos? and that documents destroyed after that (including the files of 46 employees) were spoliated; court ordered that the jury would hear about the destruction and be instructed by the court on how to proceed (instruction would be crafted after hearing all the evidence)

Nature of Case: Products Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (46 “custodial files”)

Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, No C12-1142JLR, 2014 WL 1356205 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that Defendant and its counsels? ?lackluster search for documents, failure to implement a litigation hold, deletion of evidence, refusal to cooperation with Plaintiffs in the discovery process (particularly as evidenced by its withholding of information regarding both the backup tapes and its interpretation of the parties? Stipulated Order), reliance on a recklessly false declaration, shifting litigation positions, and inaccurate representations to the court constitute bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith? and ordered payment of Plaintiffs? attorneys fees ?incurred due to Corinthian?s bad faith discovery practices? and also ordered fines against Defendant ($25,000) and its counsel ($10,000)

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation (discrimination, hostile work environment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email, ESI on backup tapes

Tag:Spoliation