Case Summaries – Page 193 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kravtsov v Town of Greenburgh, No. 10-cv-3142 (CS), 2012 WL 2719663 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to preserve potentially relevant surveillance video despite notice of plaintiff?s claim and a request for preservation was at least grossly negligent in light of the failure to implement a litigation hold, the delay between the request for the video and efforts to retrieve it, and the ?collective ignorance? of the people who should have know how the surveillance system worked (the time stamp was set for the wrong time zone resulting in collection of the wrong footage?a mistake that was not discovered until the relevant footage had been recorded over) and where the court determined that because of the grossly negligent conduct, ?relevance [was] determined as a matter of law,? the court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference and payment of related costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Claims of discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, and religion, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and denial of a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff?s disability

Electronic Data Involved: Video Surveillance

Perez-Garcia v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., No. 08-1448 (GAG), 2012 WL 2553274 (D.P.R. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found request for sanctions for defendant?s failure to retain records dating back to 1995 was not supported by the rules or the case law on the subject and stated that ?Corporations may maintain their records according to their business practices, so long as the record keeping does not afoul [sic] of the rules outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and judicially created rules of the court.? Addressing plaintiff?s citation to an Eighth Circuit case ?that states that a negative inference can be given when the company?s policy for retention of documents is unreasonable or in bad faith,? (Remington Arms Co. , 836 FRD 1103 (8th Cir. 1988)) the court found that defendant?s policy was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith

Nature of Case: Claims arising from crash of golf cart perhaps related to faulty emergency brake

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., TN, 2012 WL 4945607 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Reviewing District Court?s denial of spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion, Circuit Court found that the at-issue information should have been preserved and was intentionally destroyed but upheld the denial of sanctions based on plaintiffs? inability to establish relevance, a necessary element of the test for determining whether sanctions are appropriate

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Survey results)

Use of a Hammer and of Wiping Software to Destroy Evidence Results in Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claims

Nov 27 2012

Taylor v. Mitre Corp., No. 1:11-cv-1247, 2012 WL 5473573 (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2012) adopting recommendations of Taylor v. Mitre Corp., No. 1:11-cv-01247 (LO/IDD), 2012 WL 5473715 (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2012)

In this case, the Magistrate Judge found that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims was warranted for his “egregious” discovery conduct, including physically destroying a relevant computer with a hammer and using both Evidence Eliminator and CCleaner to erase potentially relevant evidence. The court also recommended that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of the spoliation. On appeal, the recommendations were adopted by the District Court.

For Failure to Preserve, Court Orders Production of Privileged Documents and Work-Product

Nov 16 2012

United States ex rel. Baker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 05-279 WJ/ACT, 2012 WL 5387069 (D.N.M. Oct. 3, 2012) overruling objections to United States ex rel. Baker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., No. 05-279 WJ/ACT (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 2012)

In this case, the Magistrate Judge determined that sanctions were warranted for the Government’s untimely and inadequate litigation holds, which resulted in prejudice to Defendants. As a sanction, the Magistrate Judge recommended that that the Government be ordered to produce documents that it had withheld as privileged and/or work product, that Defendants were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and that the Government must show cause why additional searching should not be required. The District Court overruled objections to the order.

Court Orders Broad Discovery of Class Members’ Social Media, Text Messages & Email

Nov 13 2012

E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2012 WL 5430974 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012)

In this case involving allegations of sexual harassment, a hostile environment and retaliation, the court granted in part Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ordered broad discovery of class members’ social media, text messages and email.

For Discovery Violations, Court Orders Retention of Outside Vendor to Collect Responsive Documents, Investigate Possible Spoliation

Nov 02 2012

Carrillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., No. CV 11-8557-CAS (DTBx), 2012 WL 4791614 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012)

In this case, the court concluded that Defendant failed to comply with its discovery obligations by 1) failing to conduct a reasonably diligent search, 2) improperly withholding responsive documents, and 3) failing to take adequate steps to ensure preservation. Accordingly, the court ordered that an outside vendor be retained to search for and collect Defendant’s responsive documents and to determine if any documents had been permanently deleted, at Defendant’s expense. The court also ordered monetary sanctions.

Court Instructs Parties to Utilize Predictive Coding, Requires Show of Cause to Avoid It

Oct 26 2012

EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012)

Following argument on partial summary judgment and a motion to dismiss in the Delaware Court of Chancery on Monday, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster turned to the topic of a scheduling order and, apparently without outside provocation, addressed the issue of predictive coding:

The Court: Thank you. Why don’t you all talk about a scheduling order for the litigation on the counterclaims. This seems to me to be an ideal non-expedited case in which the parties would benefit from using predictive coding. I would like you all, if you do not want to use predictive coding, to show cause why this is not a case where predictive coding is the way to go.

I would like you all to talk about a single discovery provider that could be used to warehouse both sides’ documents to be your single vendor. Pick one of these wonderful discovery super powers that is able to maintain the integrity of both side’s documents and insure that no one can access the other side’s information. If you cannot agree on a suitable discovery vendor, you can submit names to me and I will pick one for you.

One thing I don’t want to do – one of the nice things about most of these situations is once people get to the indemnification realm, particularly if you get the business guys involved, they have some interest in working out a number and moving on. The problem is that these types of indemnification claims can generate a huge amount of documents. That’s why I would really encourage you all, instead of burning lots of hours with people reviewing, it seems to me this is the type of non-expedited case where we could all benefit from some new technology use.

Transcript of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and Ruling of the Court at 66-67, EORHB, Inc. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012).

Following this exchange, counsel were asked if they had anything else they wished to discuss, to which both responded they did not. Watch this blog for further developments in this case.

Concluding Litigation Hold and Document Retention Policies are “Clearly Unacceptable,” Court Allows Depositions to Determine if Spoliation Occurred

Oct 16 2012

Scentsy Inc. v. B.R. Chase LLC, No. 1:11-cv-00249-BLW, 2012 WL 4523112 (D. Idaho Oct. 2, 2012)

In this case involving alleged trade dress and copyright infringement and related claims, the court addressed Defendants’ allegations of spoliation and focused in particular on Plaintiff’s litigation hold and document retention policies, which it concluded were “clearly unacceptable.” Recognizing that it was “unlikely” that relevant documents were destroyed, the court nonetheless allowed depositions to be taken at Plaintiff’s expense and indicated its potential willingness to issue an adverse inference instruction or to dismiss some or all of Plaintiff’s claims if it was determined that spoliation occurred.

Court Focuses on Cooperation & Proportionality to Resolve Discovery Disputes

Oct 12 2012

Kleen Prods. LLC v. Packaging Corp. of Am., No. 10 C 5711, 2012 WL 4498465 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012)

In this multi-defendant litigation, Plaintiffs sought additional discovery, including the identification of additional custodians and the restoration and review of Defendants’ backup tapes. In resolving these discovery disputes, the court focused on the need for cooperation and proper consideration and application of the principle of proportionality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)).

Catagory:Case Summaries