Key Insight: delayed legal hold and missing metadata caused prejudice; sanctions imposed such that plaintiffs may not use the date in a document to prove document creation date and defendant may offer archived websites from the internet into evidence
Nature of Case: defamation, libel
Electronic Data Involved: websites, emails, metadata
Keywords: metadata, legal hold, spoliation of websites
Key Insight: communications that occurred outside of the mediation but involve the mediator are not protected by the mediation privilege
Nature of Case: Insurance Bad Faith
Electronic Data Involved: documents used in mediation that Defendant claim to be protected by mediation privilege
Keywords: mediation privilege, reconsideration, under seal
Key Insight: Lack of prejudice or evidence of intent to deprive. Denied motion for dispositive sanctions under Rule 37(e). No evidence that higher quality recordings actually existed and were not preserved.
Nature of Case: Excessive force used during security screening
Electronic Data Involved: closed circuit video recordings
Keywords: preserve video recording, excessive force at the security screening.
Key Insight: Lost ESI claim failed because there was no proof anything was lost and there was no clear duty to preserve.
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets
Electronic Data Involved: archived email, facebook posts
Keywords: spoliation, lost ESI, duty to preserve
Key Insight: In this case, the court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of over 600 documents previously produced with extensive non-responsive redactions applied. Defendants argued that the redactions were necessary to protect confidential business information that was not relevant to the underlying dispute and cited In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig., 14-24009-CV-MORENO, 2016 WL 1460143 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2016), in support of their position. In Takata, the court allowed certain non-responsive redactions ?because of its concern that the documents contained competitively sensitive materials that may have been exposed to the public, despite protective orders.? In the present case, the court cited Burris v. Versa Prods., Inc., No. 07-3938 (JRT/JJK), 2013 WL 608742 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2013) for the propositions that non-responsive redactions are not explicitly supported by the federal rules and that allowing such redactions has the potential for abuse, where parties would be incentivized to ?hide as much as they dare.? The court further reasoned that Defendants did not assert any privilege or provide a ?compelling reason? for their ?extensive? redactions and that they failed to explain why the existing protective order did not provide adequate protection. Thus, the court concluded that it ?[did] not see a compelling reason to alter the traditionally broad discovery allowed by the rules by letting the defendants unilaterally redact large portions of their responsive documents on relevance grounds? and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: For Defendants? negligent (or even reckless) failure to preserve relevant video footage following Plaintiff?s release from jail despite the ?distinct possibility? of litigation in light of the injuries Plaintiff suffered while in custody and his specific threats to sue, the court imposed sanctions to redress the prejudice to Plaintiff and ordered that the court would tell the jury that the video was not preserved and that the parties could present evidence and argument regarding that failure for the jury?s consideration
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage from jail
Key Insight: For an individual defendant?s admitted disposal of his laptop and deletion of the contents of his external drive after transferring the contents to a thumb drive despite Plaintiff?s request to preserve and pending litigation, the court reasoned that Plaintiff ?plausibly suggests? that the laptop and hard drive ?might have? contained relevant ESI based on Defendant?s admitted accessing and copying of confidential files and imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and an order for Defendants to permit and pay for examination of the at-issue external drive, but the court declined to impose sanctions for the individual defendant?s loss of his cellphone ?based on the current state of the evidentiary record? where Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence sufficient to suggest that the loss was not inadvertent or to clarify the approximate time of the loss
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop, ESI, cellular phone
Key Insight: The Court granted Plaintiffs? Motion to Compel Production of Defendants? computer images. Defendants made their source code available to Plaintiffs who then identified comments made prior to the produced source code date. Defendants insisted the pre-July 2013 source code was destroyed when Plaintiffs? former employee became a full-time employee of Defendants. The Court found that Defendants provided a sufficient explanation of good faith destruction of pre-July 2013 code but that limited forensic imaging could recover important deleted materials. The Court held that a tailored examination by a third-party forensic expert of Defendants? computers is appropriate to determine whether the pre-July code is recoverable or to assist in cross-examination as to its destruction.
Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image
Key Insight: For a defendant?s spoliation and failure to participate in litigation, the court struck the defendant?s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and eventually also awarded default judgment and attorneys fees to the plaintiff; addressing whether to also sanction Defendant?s counsel for failing to prevent the spoliation, the court reasoned that ?it seems obvious that the party requesting sanctions has at least an initial burden of proof with respect to not only whether sanctionable conduct has occurred, but also with respect to whether the misbehaving party?s attorney may have been involved? and found Plaintiff?s assertions and evidence of such involvement ?too thin?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.