Tag:Spoliation

1
Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)
2
Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)
3
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)
4
Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)
5
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nicor, Inc., 2006 WL 1305036 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2006)
6
Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)
7
Optowave Co., Ltd. v. Nikitin, 2006 WL 3231422 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)
8
N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)
9
Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2349985 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2006)
10
PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction not warranted for defendant’s routine destruction of surveillance videotapes created on date of incident; defendant presented evidence that there was no videotape that depicted the subject area where the incident occurred and plaintiff did not show that destroyed videotapes contained any images or information relevant to any issue at trial

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotapes

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

Key Insight: Court directed defendants to confirm in writing whether it searched particular email accounts or conduct such search if it had not already done so; court further denied plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions based upon defendant’s alleged failure to preserve chat room comments since it was highly unlikely that any comments by members of the public that would be pertinent to the lawsuit would have been received, since chat room was opened after relevant time period and technology to save chat room comments was not installed until over a year later

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Chat room comments; email

Kemper Mortgage, Inc. v. Russell, 2006 WL 4968120 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented convincing evidence at preliminary injunction hearing of defendant’s intentional spoliation of evidence, including his installation of file ?shredder? program on laptop computer the day before litigation was filed and under threat of its commencement, court allowed inference that that considerably more evidence of misconduct would have been found without the spoliation and granted preliminary injunction barring defendant from, among other things, destroying or deleting relevant ESI

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer

Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nicor, Inc., 2006 WL 1305036 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2006)

Key Insight: Citing concerns that defendant had not accounted for documents that at one time were in its files, court ordered defendant to produce all responsive documents, submit a sworn declaration from a corporate officer setting forth precisely why it did not produce the documents that had been shown to the court, make its computers available for inspection by Leviton and its experts, and provide Leviton with an authorization to defendant’s email service company to produce all of defendant’s communication with its customers

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Angelotti v. Roth, 2006 WL 3666849 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied request for sanctions or adverse inference instruction based on absence of video footage of plaintiff after arrest since there was no evidence of bad faith and video security system had experienced a number of unexplained problems

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Optowave Co., Ltd. v. Nikitin, 2006 WL 3231422 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated warnings not to destroy relevant evidence, defendant allowed another party to reformat hard drives of his employees’ computers without first preserving relevant files contained on computers to be reformatted, resulting in loss of crucial electronic evidence, court found that adverse inference instruction was appropriate sanction

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email and customer files

N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon spoliation allegedly committed by former president when he erased from his computer copies of documents containing information he believed to be proprietary to plaintiff, since defendant ?discarded the documents to avoid impropriety, not to engage in it? and because the evidence that was the subject of the spoliation claim was in the record and plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary electronic documents, including business plans and customer lists

Krumwiede v. Brighton Assocs., L.L.C., 2006 WL 2349985 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2006)

Key Insight: Further to its May 8, 2006 order imposing severe sanctions against Krumwiede for willful and bad faith spoliation of evidence, court awarded Brighton $111,348 for its costs and fees relating to sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Former employee who went to work for competitor sued for back pay and reformation of employment agreement; former employer asserted counterclaims for breach of non-compete and confidentiality clauses and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computers

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.