Spoliation – Page 49 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Riley v. Marriott Int?l, Inc., No. 12-CV-6242P, 2014 WL 4794657 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where hotel’s security system recorded elevator area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall, but hotel produced only seven minutes of footage, which began about one minute before the accident and ended before plaintiff was removed from the ground and placed into a wheelchair, and hotel offered no sworn facts concerning the circumstances under which the footage was destroyed, court found hotel was grossly negligent at minimum and concluded that permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate and sufficient to deter hotel from similar future conduct and restore plaintiff’s position in the litigation

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Security camera footage of area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall

Schreane v. Beemon, 575 Fed. Appx. 486 (5th Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court did not err in rejecting plaintiff?s request for spoliation inference based on erasure of surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of bad faith, as plaintiff offered no evidence that anyone who knew of his objections to the subject correctional officers? conduct was involved in the decision to record over the tape; court further noted that government produced what remained of requested tape (a few minutes of plaintiff?s assault), government provided affidavit of electronics technician who described prison?s general policy of automatically recording over surveillance video not marked for investigation within 15-30 days of recording, and there was no indication that any prison official even viewed the footage because it was not live-monitored 24 hours a day

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought Bivens action against correctional officer, alleging Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance tape

Painter v. Atwood, No. 2:12-cv-01215-JCM-RJJ, 2014 WL 1089694 (D. Nev. Mar. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction where, after she contemplated filing a lawsuit and retained counsel, plaintiff intentionally deleted Facebook comments that stated she enjoyed working for defendants; however, no sanctions were warranted for plaintiff’s deletion of text messages, as she was not on notice to preserve the texts at the time she deleted them (prior to leaving defendants’ employ)

Nature of Case: Former employee of dental practice sued for sexual harrassment, constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages and social media posts (Facebook comments and photographs)

Clemons v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-339, 1:11-cv-340, 2014 WL 3507299 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant attempted to preserve relevant video by assigning a part time maintenance/IT employee to copy the relevant portion but failed to discover that the wrong portion was copied before the tape was overwritten, the Magistrate Judge found that the failure to preserve the relevant footage was grossly negligent and recommended a mandatory adverse inference, that defendant be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony from witnesses who viewed the unavailable footage and that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney?s fees; the district court adopted the recommendations

Nature of Case: Claims of deliberate indifference to prisoner’s medical needs

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions against wireless carrier for employee’s deletion of particular email that referenced collusion, notwithstanding that deletion was intentional and done for the purpose of concealing the contents of the email, because record did not reflect that author of deleted email was in a position to have knowledge of or participate in any collusion between the wireless carriers, and thus plaintiffs could not show that missing email would have been adverse to wireless carrier

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Pettit v. Smith, No. CV-11-02139-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 4425779 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court ruled that under the special circumstances of the case and notwithstanding that it was not a party to the litigation, Arizona Department of Corrections had duty to preserve the missing evidence, its failure to do so was at least grossly negligent, evidence was plainly relevant and plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by its loss; court declined to impose case-terminating sanctions against individual defendants but would allow parties to present evidence and argument about the lost evidence and would instruct jury that ADC had a duty to preserve evidence, ADC did not preserve the evidence, and jurors may infer that lost evidence would have been favorable to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Inmate alleged correctional officers used excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of event, photograph of plaintiff’s hand, and other documentary evidence

Tag:Spoliation