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: Addressing Defendant?s request for forensic examination of Plaintiff?s computer as part of its Omnibus Discovery Motion, court noted Plaintiff?s testimony that her computer had crashed three times resulting in the loss of access to certain information, the fact that ?the majority? of Plaintiff?s work for Defendants was conducted remotely via computer, and the fact that Defendants were willing to pay for the examination, and concluded that Defendants had provided a ?legal basis justifying their request? but noted Defendant?s failure to provide sufficient information regarding the devices at issue, the identity or qualifications of the forensic expert or any details regarding the protocol or specifics of what to search for and thus denied the motion without prejudice
Nature of Case: Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, sexual harassment, and retaliatory, wrongful termination, etc.
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic examination of computer
Key Insight: Where event data recorder information saved on a laptop computer (1) was transferred to a central repository (?the Vault?) without validation and later found to be unreadable and (2) the original files were destroyed, without validating the files in the Vault, with the laptop after a hardware malfunction, court granted plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference but declined to strike defendants? answer. Court found defendants? failure to review and validate file uploads to the central repository for over 4 years after the accident ?unfathomable? and concluded that ?their failure to access the files uploaded to the Vault for the four-year period before 2010 conflicted with their duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.? Court found defendants? actions unreasonable and without credible explanation and therefore sufficient to support a finding that defendants acted with the intent to deprive plaintiff of evidence.
Nature of Case: Personal injury (railway accident)
Electronic Data Involved: Event Data Recorder Files
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: Where Defendant?s use of an internal utility tool on the at-issue server resulted in all of the data thereon being overwritten but where the District Court Judge found ?credible? Defendant?s explanations that he did not believe the hard drives contained relevant information and where the ?unique facts? of the case, namely the focus on Defendant?s TOR Node – which ?routed information for other end users around the world? but did not contain Defendant?s personal data – contributed to the court?s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge?s finding of intent, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge?s finding of spoliation but declined to impose default judgement and instead concluded that an adverse inference was appropriate
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant sought to examine plaintiff?s smartphone itself for the purpose of obtaining a log of blocked calls arguing that ?plaintiff is not entitled to recovery for any blocked calls,? the court noted that defendant had failed to provide legal basis for this position and that ?[T]here is no routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system. … absent a factual finding of some non-compliance with [the] discovery rules, direct access is unwarranted.? The court further noted that defendant made no effort to comply with the requirement for a proposal for the protection of privacy rights, the protection of privileged information, and the separation of irrelevant information during inspection. On this basis, the court found direct access to the cell phone unwarranted and denied defendant?s motion to compel.
Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Electronic Data Involved: Cell Phone Call Block Records
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.