Spoliation – Page 46 – Electronic Discovery Law

Celestica Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 312(GBD)(MHD), 2014 WL 1301881 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Mandatory adverse inference instruction was not warranted by former Chairman’s admitted deletion of e-mails after his retirement despite written document preservation instruction from corporate counsel at the outset of litigation, as defendants did not have requisite culpable state of mind and there was insufficient evidence of relevance or prejudice; instead, permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails of defendant Celestica’s former Chairman of the Board

Mazzei v. Money Store, No. 01cv5694 (JGK)(RLE), 2014 WL 3610894 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant failed to preserve data in its control (an issue it hotly contested) when it sold certain assets of its wholly owned subsidiary, including the database/?system? that contained the at issue data; court found failure to preserve was willful and in bad faith and that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss; where a non-party who works with defendant indicated that it had information from the at issue system but that the information was not ?readable? and that it would be expensive to extract and convert it, the court ordered defendant to bear the cost of determining whether the system was searchable and to pay plaintiff his attorneys fees for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Class action re: violation of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Weitzman v. Maywood, Melrose Park, Broadview Sch. Dist. 89, No. 13 C 1228, 2014 WL 4269074 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference instruction where school district destroyed clearly relevant recordings of school board?s closed session meetings by failing to suspend its usual document destruction policies after having notice of its duty to preserve, and where plaintiff suffered substantial prejudice as a result because she was deprived of perhaps the best evidence concerning school district?s real reasons for her termination; court further denied school district?s pending motion for summary judgment since, in light of the adverse inference against the school district, the material facts as to the district?s reasons for terminating plaintiff were, at a minimum, disputed, and in fact appeared to support plaintiff?s claim of discrimination

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim

Electronic Data Involved: Tape recordings of school board’s closed session meetings during which board members discussed the decision not to renew contracts of plaintiff and others

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07-CV-7767 (AKH)(KNF), 2014 WL 5364100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendants? repeated failure to properly search for, locate and produce audio recordings, their inability to account for the audio recordings? disappearance, and their conflicting representations to the court and plaintiff about the existence of the recordings, as well as their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate email messages and their lack of explanation for the ?human error? they claimed was responsible for the delay, warranted a finding of bad faith conduct that prejudiced plaintiff; court declined to impose extreme sanction of striking defendants? pleadings and instead imposed an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the spoliated audio recordings, monetary sanctions representing plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred in connection with motion, and the retaking of certain depositions at defendants? expense

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and various business torts

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings, email

Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp v. Banco BRJ S.A., 11-CV-1529 (KMW) 2014 WL 7051380 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court found Plaintiff committed spoliation when a computer containing key documents was destroyed. Court imposed sanctions of precluding evidence derived from the computer from being presented at trial and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney fees and costs. Upon review, Court upheld the spoliation ruling but imposed a mandatory adverse inference instead of the preclusion order. Court agreed that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve, was culpable in the destruction of the evidence, and the data that was destroyed was relevant to the Defendant?s claims. The court further elaborated that Plaintiff?s duty to preserve did not end when the computer allegedly crashed, and that Plaintiff should have made reasonable efforts to recover the data it contained. Saying that the spoliation prejudiced the defendant in a ?severe way? that can only be corrected by a ?substantial sanction,? the Court found that a mandatory adverse inference was the best way to repair the damage to Defendant without being a ?harsh measure given the extent of Plaintiff?s reliance of the documents??

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of “crashed” laptop computer

Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC, No. 13-cv-01806, 2014 WL 1338480 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied issue preclusion sanctions without prejudice, ordering defendants to pay monetary sanctions of $20,444, produce all hard drives and any other electronic storage media subject to court-approved protocol for inspection, and provide plaintiff’s experts with access to defendants’ various e-mail, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and eBay accounts, in light of serious concern as to whether defendants met their discovery obligations and real danger that evidence may be destroyed

Nature of Case: Breach of settlement agreement resolving trademark infringement and unfair competition claims

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ hard drives and various e-mail, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and eBay accounts

Hawley v. Mphasis Corp., No. 12 Civ. 592(DAB)(JLC), 2014 WL 3610946 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions for spoliation of contents of Plaintiff?s work laptop (by deleting the data and reissuing the computer to another employee) where despite the court?s finding that defendant had been grossly negligent in its failure to preserve, a presumption of relevance was not warranted and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the lost documents would have supported his claim; regarding the destruction of plaintiff?s supervisor?s laptop (who had resigned), the court ordered an adverse inference where the court found that the failure to preserve was grossly negligent and where defendant?s conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant a finding that the evidence was unfavorable to it (notably, the court indicated it ?[did] not matter? who had wiped the hard drive because defendant should have taken steps to preserve the data well in advance of the supervisor?s resignation); court ordered an adverse inference for defendant?s failure to produce certain evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of plaintiff’s laptop and supervisor’s laptop

Connelly v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., No. 12-2660, 2014 WL 2003093 (E.D. La. May 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at point in time at which surveillance videotape was overridden pursuant to VA’s 30-day retention policy, VA was on notice that the surveillance tape was relevant to litigation; plaintiff also failed to show any bad faith with respect to the alleged destruction of video surveillance

Nature of Case: Federal Tort Claims Act claim for slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Tag:Spoliation