Spoliation – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment where court found defendant deliberately destroyed computer servers, and with it certain ESI that had been requested by the plaintiff, where such destruction demonstrated the necessary ?willfulness, bad faith and fault? to support such a sanction, where the prejudice caused by the failure to produce the ESI was ?not excused? by the fact that plaintiff already possessed some of the destroyed documents, and where less severe sanctions were previously awarded and defendant had been warned of the possibility of stricter sanctions in future

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on server

DeBakker v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics E., 2009 WL 5031319 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, to obtain an adverse inference the moving party must establish ?that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed,? and where plaintiff failed to establish the individual defendant?s control of the spoliated medical notes and failed to establish the facility?s duty to preserve, court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions; in so holding, court declined to find a duty to preserve based on the facility?s own document retention policy and stated, ?the mere existence of a document retention policy does not give rise to a duty to preserve every document generated under that policy. The duty to preserve arises only when a party becomes ?reasonably aware of the possibility of litigation

Nature of Case: Action arising from allegations that defective leg brace caused a fall resulting in permanent injury

Electronic Data Involved: Medical notes

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Bolger v. D.C., 608 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants admitted destroying relevant radio communications but argued that such destruction was not sanctionable because it unintentionally occurred as the result of a routine operation of the police communication systems and because the information destroyed was of minimal relevance, court found that defendants were under an obligation to preserve and had (at least) negligently destroyed the radio communications, but declined to order an adverse inference because plaintiff?s proffer of evidence regarding the communications? relevance and the proper inference from their destruction was ?too speculative?

Nature of Case: ? 1983 Action against D.C. police for constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: Radio communications (“radio runs”)

Paradise v. Al Copeland Invs., Inc., 22 So.3d 1018 (La. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering an adverse presumption in favor of plainitff for defendant?s loss of relevant computer evidence by discarding a hard drive after it crashed where defendant offered a reasonable explanation for the loss; court?s reasoning also relied upon evidence that the communications sought by plaintiff were available from an alternative source

Nature of Case: Class action for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Bensel v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 263 F.R.D. 150(D.N.J. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite acknowledging that ?defendants should have moved more quickly to place litigation holds on the routine destruction of certain documents and electronic data,? the court found that plaintiffs failed to identify any specific document that was lost or destroyed, failed to establish destruction of documents in bad faith and failed to specify any prejudice arising from the alleged bad behavior and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; in so holding, court noted plaintiff?s reliance on speculation and ?vague statements? which did not ?rise to the specificity level required by the Third Circuit to impose sanctions or even make a finding of spoliation.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of breach of duty of fair representation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Boyce, 2009 WL 1034775 (Apr. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered evidentiary hearing where defendant argued the case against him should be dismissed upon the police department?s inability to produce in-car videotape allegedly containing exculpatory evidence because of ?equipment problems? and where defendant asserted that factual issues needed to be resolved surrounding the department?s efforts to secure the footage and whether any procedure for preservation existed

Nature of Case: Possession with intent to distribute

Electronic Data Involved: Video tape

Elec. Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy, 2009 WL 1717383 (Cal. Ct. App. June 19, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where terminating sanctions were ordered against defendants for the deliberate deletion/destruction of electronically stored information using wiping software but where the subsequent judgment of the trial court was reversed on appeal and remanded and where the trial court thereafter granted plaintiff?s motion for terminating sanctions, appellate court ruled that trial court did not err in granting plaintiff?s motion where the court?s previous discovery orders to produce information remained in effect and where defendants continued in their violation of such order by failing to produce relevant discovery because they had destroyed it; court stated: ?A continuing discovery violation does not end if the responding party is permanently unable to comply because that party intentionally destroyed the material it was ordered to produce.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, intentional interference with economic relationships, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng?g & Constr., Inc. 2009 WL 2982901 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel upon finding that defendant ?did not timely comply with its discovery obligations? including failing to timely produce a hard drive, a laptop computer, and other relevant documents and failing to produce a privilege log, among other things, and ordered defendant to produce all relevant ESI and to provide additional information regarding the location and collection of additional ESI, including the identification of sources no longer available; court deferred ruling on alleged spoliation but awarded plaintiff $17,375.00 in attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gillet v. MI Farm Bureau, 2009 WL 4981193 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted an ?extremely significant? number of data files from his personal computer despite notice of his obligation to preserve and was thus sanctioned by dismissal of his case, trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiff?s actions were not in good faith, particularly in light of the number of files deleted, and properly considered alternative sanctions before imposing terminating sanctions, despite the trial judge?s failure to ?expressly recite? those alternatives on the record; court?s denial of attorneys? fees/monetary sanctions was no abuse of discretion where the court ?dealt appropriately? with plaintiff?s conduct by dismissing the case and where the refusal to impose additional sanctions was ?not unreasoned or unprincipled?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Spoliation