Case Summaries – Page 234 – Electronic Discovery Law

DeMeo v. City of Albany, 901 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion when it denied petitioner?s motion for contempt for respondent?s violation of the court?s preservation order where petitioner failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the loss and failed to establish the violation was knowing and willful where respondent testified he initially preserved but then lost the relevant video tape when, as he ?surmised?, his spouse cleaned his office without his knowledge ?and placed the hard drive back into rotation with the others, thus taping over the pertinent portions?

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleging assault commenced action seeking to preserve surveillance video

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 186616 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Noting the need to wield a court?s inherent power to impose sanctions with ?great restraint?, the appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose attorney?s fees as an additional sanction for defendant?s spoliation where the court provided an adverse inference instruction to the jury and where the trial court found the jury?s verdict provided ?adequate compensation? for plaintiff?s claims; appellate court noted plaintiff?s failure to renew its request for fees based on spoliation following the jury?s verdict

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives, backup tapes

State v. Dewitt, 2010 WL 5550243 (Ohio App. Ct. Dec. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court overruled defendant?s assignment of error and found no violation of defendant?s due process rights resulting from the loss of a portion of the video surveillance footage of his traffic stop where defendant presented no evidence of bad faith in the destruction or loss, where defendant failed to seek a preservation order to prevent its destruction, and where defendant offered only speculation as to the exculpatory nature of the missing portions of video

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer

Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., No. 08-cv-376-slc, 2010 WL 2571983 (W.D. Wis. June 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for review of costs, including costs related to forensic recovery of electronic data, where the court found that the costs requested by defendant were ?authorized by statute and were reasonably and necessary to the litigation?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp., 2010 WL 2812999 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanction and precluded plaintiff and its expert from offering opinion or evidence on any simulations relied upon in forming the basis of plaintiff?s Second Infringement Report where the input data upon which the simulations relied were lost in a computer crash and where plaintiff failed to timely disclose the destruction

Electronic Data Involved: Input data forming basis for expert’s report

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danley, Inc., 2010 WL 3894203 (D. Me. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? counsel refused to electronically search its files for potentially responsive information, the court found the data ?not reasonably accessible? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel the search where defendants? counsel had already spent 30 hours searching and had produced or logged the documents discovered in that search, and where plaintiffs? offered ?no reason to believe that further responsive documents exists or, if any do, that they are not cumulative??; ?alternatively? court denied the motion ?pursuant to 26(b)(2)(c)? where ?the burden ? of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic contents of files of defendants’ counsel

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

People v. Taylor, 922 N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that state failed to properly authenticate silent surveillance video, appellate court agreed and concluded that ?where no witness can testify as to the authentication of the recording as truly and accurately portraying what he or she has seen or heard, the requirements for a silent-witness foundation must be met?

Nature of Case: Theft of property less than $300

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

State v. Huggett, 783 N.W.2d 675 (Wis. App. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where police confiscated cell phones from the defendant and a key witness which contained highly relevant and exculpatory messages but failed to preserve them, court reasoned that ?[b]y creating an expectation of preservation [in the mind of the defendant], the State became responsible for ensuring that it occurred? and that its failure to do so deprived the defendant of due process such that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate

Nature of Case: Charges arising from shooting of intruder, allegedly in self defense

Electronic Data Involved: Voice mail and text messages on cell phones

Catagory:Case Summaries