Tag: Text Message

1
Alarm Grid, Inc. v. AlarmClub.com, Inc. (Southern District of Florida, 2018)
2
3
Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)
4
Schmidt v. Shifflett, 1:18-cv-00663-KBM-LF (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2019).
5
Wolff v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00591-RM-SKC (D. Colo. Sep. 17, 2019).
6
In re Verizon Wireless (D. Md., 2019)
7
Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, 16-CV-6099 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2019)
8
Laub v. Horbaczewski, No. 2:17-CV-06210 JAK (KSx) (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2019).
9
Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (D. Mass., 2019)
10
Herzig et al. v. Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care Inc. (District Court of Western Arkansas, 2019)

Alarm Grid, Inc. v. AlarmClub.com, Inc. (Southern District of Florida, 2018)

Key Insight: Recorded phone call between party and copyright agent regarding image timing confidential at prelitigation phase

Nature of Case: copyright dispute

Electronic Data Involved: phone call recording

Keywords: protective order, confidential phone call, work-product

Identified State Rule(s): FRBC Rule 4-4.1, 4-1.2

Identified Federal Rule(s): 26(b)(3), 37(a)(5)

View Case Opinion

Key Insight: Court rejected additional discovery based off proportionality and discovery already produced. There was no additional proof of unproduced, relevant texts.

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages

Keywords: additional discovery, proportionality

Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, et al. (Eastern District of California, 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff was made aware that he had to preserve his phone records and text records and than failed to do so

Nature of Case: personal injury and liability

Electronic Data Involved: plaintiff’s cell phone and text messages

Keywords: spoliation, text messages, phone records, cell phone, preservation

View Case Opinion

Schmidt v. Shifflett, 1:18-cv-00663-KBM-LF (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2019).

Key Insight: Severe sanctions will not be granted where bad faith cannot be proved and no prejudice.

Nature of Case: Automobile collision.

Electronic Data Involved: Mobile phone data.

Keywords: intentional destruction, adverse inference

View Case Opinion

Wolff v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00591-RM-SKC (D. Colo. Sep. 17, 2019).

Key Insight: Both sides moved for spoliation sanctions. Court was troubled by failure to suspend automatic deletion and loss of personal cell phone, but imposed no sanctions.

Nature of Case: Employee Termination/Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: cell phones, company computer, notebooks

Keywords: spoliation; sanctions; automatic deletion

View Case Opinion

Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, 16-CV-6099 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2019)

Key Insight: The obligation to preserve evidence in a workplace discrimination suit can extend to personal devices known to contain relevant material.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: text messages

Keywords: personal device, text message, obligation to preserve

View Case Opinion

Laub v. Horbaczewski, No. 2:17-CV-06210 JAK (KSx) (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2019).

Key Insight: Did not withhold irrelevant texts. Judge denied clawback for relevance.

Nature of Case: Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages

Keywords: clawback, relevance

View Case Opinion

Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (D. Mass., 2019)

Key Insight: whether failure to provide text messages talked was spoliation of evidence

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: forensic imaging of plaintiff’s cell phone, relevant text messages

Keywords: text messages, forensic imaging of cell phone, spoliation

View Case Opinion

Herzig et al. v. Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care Inc. (District Court of Western Arkansas, 2019)

Key Insight: Responsive communications were intentionally withheld and destroyed when the plaintiffs switched to an encrypted communication app

Nature of Case: wrongful termination and age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: emails, text messages.

Keywords: Intentional spoliation, bad faith, encrypted communication application

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2021, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.