Spoliation – Page 90 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2008 WL 4850116 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered only an inference that evidence was destroyed based on ?the mere lack of evidence? produced by defendant and where plaintiffs failed to take timely action to address discovery disputes, court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation; addressing plaintiffs? argument that defendant?s failure to issue a timely litigation hold notice resulted in destruction of evidence, court noted, ?[w]hile a party must ?put in place a ?litigation hold? to ensure the preservation of relevant documents, there is no requirement that it must be written.? [citation omitted]

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Deciding various motions in limine, court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence relating to destruction of surveillance videotape to demonstrate that adverse inference instruction was not barred as a matter of law; court further granted plaintiff?s motion to re-open discovery for limited purpose of conducting focused three-hour deposition of particular individual who was most knowledgeable about defendant?s video surveillance system

Nature of Case: Lebanese nightclub patron brought civil rights action against municipality, police department, and certain employees and owners of nightclub

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve laptop by continued use and by running defragmentation program, court imposed sanction of fees and costs and precluded defendants from making particular arguments that became unverifiable as result of failure to preserve; where forensic examination revealed creation of false evidence on laptop, court ordered accused defendant to show cause why matter should not be referred for prosecution

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Jones v. Jones, 995 So.2d 706 (Miss. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where party admitted to deliberate destruction of personal computer and was thus unable to produce it in response to discovery requests and where party also admitted to perjury, Supreme Court held chancellor abused his discretion in failing to impose sanctions pursuant to his obligation to ?consider sanctions that are severe enough to deter other from pursuing similar action? and remanded for reconsideration accordingly

Nature of Case: Divorce

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 185649 (Bankr. D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Although expert fees and expenses were not taxable as costs under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920, court ruled that, since most if not all of the work performed by Hawaiian Airlines’ computer forensics expert was directly attributable to Mesa’s spoliation of evidence (which was subject of October 30, 2007 decision imposing certain evidentiary sanctions against Mesa), the expert’s fees and expenses of approximately $80,000 would be awarded as an additional spoliation sanction

Nature of Case: Airline undergoing reorganization alleged that prospective investor (Mesa) breached confidentiality agreement and misused confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Confidential information stored on secure website

Peterson v. Tri-Country Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 2008 WL 723521 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence

Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes

St. Tammany Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2008 WL 728948 (E.D. La. Mar. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff explained that earlier drafts of expert?s report were not ?destroyed,? but that expert merely saved different ?iterations? of report within same file on his computer until report was complete, and where there was no indication that drafts of report were edited or ?ghost-written? to support a predetermined outcome, court denied defense motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Prior drafts of expert’s report

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2008 WL 4786671 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish custodians? possession of relevant emails beyond speculation or vague assertions, and where responding party already produced ?voluminous amounts of email,? court declined to compel production of emails from either custodian

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 572 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider dismissal of plaintiffs? case as sanction for ?campaign of fraud? that included intentionally wiping data, ?losing? original CDs and tape recordings, and misrepresentations to the court where the court found plaintiff?s behavior willful and prejudicial and where lesser sanctions would not have sufficed and where plaintiffs? alleged ?new evidence? was also ?suspect?; dismissal affirmed on appeal (2010 WL 2294538)

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Leist v. GHG Corp., 2008 WL 183330 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff alleged that former supervisor wrote memos concerning plaintiff?s alleged deficiencies after plaintiff complained about co-employee?s racist comments, that she never saw the memos and did not sign them as was normal practice with disciplinary memos, and defendant had not preserved hard drive of supervisor?s computer, court did not grant adverse inference as to contents of hard drive but found a material question of fact as to plaintiff?s retaliation claim, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on retaliation claim

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, metadata

Tag:Spoliation