Catagory:Case Summaries

Key Insight: Defendants? duty to preserve video recording of plaintiff?s accident arose well within the two-week period before the video was erased per defendant’s document retention policies, as defendant should have anticipated litigation when defendant?s security personnel arranged for plaintiff to be taken by ambulance to a hospital for treatment of injuries sustained when she slipped, and if not then, the duty ?certainly arose? when plaintiff called defendant?s office manager and it became clear that plaintiff was seeking compensation for her injuries from defendant?s insurer; finding that video recording would have been relevant, court determined that an adverse inference instruction advising the jurors that they may infer that the video recording would have corroborated plaintiff?s allegations and rebutted defendants? assertions would suffice to restore plaintiff to the position she would have been had the recording been preserved

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage capturing plaintiff’s fall in stairwell

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s failure to collect information regarding its utilization of the at-issue software, the court refused to grant spoliation sanctions upon finding that defendant did not have an obligation to compile information related to its use of the at-issue software where such information was not typically collected in the usual course of business and where parties are only required to produce documents that exist and have no obligation to create documents to support their adversary?s theory of the case; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s migration from the at-issue software to another, the court declined to impose sanctions citing the fact that plaintiff had itself instructed defendant to destroy all copies of the at-issue software and that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that it had requested defendant halt its migration prior to filing a motion for sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs argued that Defendant?s document and preservation efforts were inadequate and briefed ?at long length several document production errors, general complications and litigation hold mishandling,? including incorrect volume estimates of documents produced by search terms, date discrepancies in metadata, and corrupt emails (among others) the court noted that Plaintiffs had not obtained a court order against Defendant or attempted to show that it acted in bad faith and found that the allegations did not rise to a level justifying appointment of an outside third party ediscovery auditor, but granted Plaintiffs? motion for depositions of certain document custodians regarding document production issues; court denied motion to require Defendant to recover all documents deleted by certain custodians, including from backup tapes, where the court found that Defendant ?carried out its duty to preserve documents in a manner commensurate with the likely scope and role of [Defendant?s] participation in future litigation? and noted that reasonable efforts do not require the preservation of ?every single scrap of paper?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Where Defendant sought spoliation sanctions for Plaintiff?s failure to preserve communications and other evidence related to her job search (related to her mitigation of damages) and where Plaintiff?s counsel explained that many of the job-seeking activities were undertaken electronically and did not result in emails to be preserved, the court reasoned that Plaintiff?s degree of fault with respect to the online services was ?not large,? that allowing her to testify that she ?periodically? reviewed job lists and ?sometimes? clicked on the links was not ?seriously prejudicial,? and that the sanctions sought were disproportional and thus ordered that Plaintiff could not testify regarding specific job inquiries absent documentation of that inquiry and that she could not testify that she applied for one-hundred or more jobs, but indicated that Plaintiff would be allowed to testify that she looked at jobs periodically and sometimes clicked on the links and to testify regarding job applications for which she provided documentation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Data related to online job searching