Tag:Spoliation

1
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
2
Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)
3
Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)
4
Nieves v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 1605623 (V.I. June 8, 2009)
5
Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 WL 1212809 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)
6
Commonwealth v. Lanana, 7 Pa. D. & C. 5th 225 (2009)
7
Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)
8
Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)
9
Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)
10
Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated defendant wiped her computer?s hard drive days before producing it for inspection but where evidence also indicated that the wiping occurred prior to receipt of the subpoena seeking the computer?s production, appellate court acknowledged a reasonable basis to suspect intentional spoliation but found that there was not sufficiently compelling evidence to require such a finding and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Nieves v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 1605623 (V.I. June 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for a spoliation instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly spoliated videotape ever existed and where a witness testified at deposition that since he didn?t keep the videotape after checking it, it means no film was made of the relevant incident

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 WL 1212809 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Where forensic examiner revealed evidence of defendants? data deletion to plaintiffs while bound by stipulated order requiring results of the examination to be reported to defendants first, but where the court found the stipulated order was focused on the discovery of actual data rather than the lack of data and that the examiner was therefore not in violation of the order, court reserved ruling on examiner?s motion for attorney?s fees stating that while the examiner?s actions did not rise to the level of contempt, they were not free from taint and that such actions ?[gave] the Court pause about granting [the examiner?s] motion

Nature of Case: Dispute over sales commissions

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to record data stored on crane?s computer following death of two construction workers, but where plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their allegations that the data was manually destroyed or that the failure to photograph the display was unreasonable and where defendants presented evidence that data could not be downloaded from the crane?s computer and plaintiff failed to request the information downloaded in the first place, court declined plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Negligence resulting in death

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on crane’s internal computer

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was ordered to produce a relevant recording and instead submitted an affidavit indicating that after a ?good faith search? she determined she was not in possession of the recording and had been mistaken in her representations to the contrary, the court granted defendant?s motion and ordered evidentiary sanctions for violating the court?s order to produce the recording after noting plaintiff?s failure to assert the possibility that she was not in possession of the recording prior to the entry of such an order; where plaintiff destroyed her handwritten notes after transcribing portions thereof, the court granted defendant?s request for an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recording, handwritten notes

Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Where videotape of relevant incident was stored on computer hard drive until the drive became full and then automatically recorded over and where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or that defendants received any request for preservation prior to the automatic function resulting in loss, court found sanctions were not warranted and denied plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of relevant incident

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.