Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Christofferson v. Malhi (D. AZ, 2017)
2
Bailey v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. Med. Ctr. (E.D.N.Y., 2017)
3
Storey v. Effingham County, No. 4:2015cv00149, 2017 WL 2623775 (S.D. Ga. June 16, 2017)
4
No Sanctions for Unintentional, Automatic Deletion of Web History and Related Information
5
Henkle v. Cumberland Farms (S.D. Fla. , 2017)
6
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Gramalegui No. 1:15-cv-02313-REB-GPG (D. Colo. June 14, 2017)
7
Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (E.D. Pa, 2017)
8
In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)
9
Tingle v. Hebert, No. 3:15-cv-00626-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. June 9, 2017)
10
Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance (Northern District of Georgia, 2017)

Christofferson v. Malhi (D. AZ, 2017)

Key Insight: the failure to implement a litigation hold is an important factor in determining culpability, ?but not per evidence of culpable conduct giving rise to a presumption of relevance and prejudice.?

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: destroyed records

Keywords: litigation hold; spoliation; adverse inference; likely to result in litigation

View Case Opinion

Bailey v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. Med. Ctr. (E.D.N.Y., 2017)

Key Insight: accessibility of data, whether counsel had meaningful discussions with his client regarding the ESI agreement, whether the meet-and-confer was meaningful

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Keywords: cost shifting, ESI agreement, meaningful negotiation, meet-and-confer, undue burden or expense

View Case Opinion

Storey v. Effingham County, No. 4:2015cv00149, 2017 WL 2623775 (S.D. Ga. June 16, 2017)

Key Insight: Spoliation of video evidence. Evidence must have existed and been in the control of a party.

Nature of Case: civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance and taser video

Keywords: spoliation sanctions, multi-step analysis, Rule 37(e), routine retention policy.

View Case Opinion

No Sanctions for Unintentional, Automatic Deletion of Web History and Related Information

Eshelman v. Puma Biotech., Inc., No. 7:16-CV-18-D, 2017 WL 2483800 (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2017)

In this case, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting a jury instruction regarding Defendant’s failure to preserve web browser history and related information for persons responsible for the preparation of an allegedly defamatory presentation where Plaintiff failed to establish that the lost information could not be restored or replaced through additional discovery or that the failure to preserve was prejudicial or intentional.

Read More

Henkle v. Cumberland Farms (S.D. Fla. , 2017)

Key Insight: whether sanction inappropriate absent bad faith

Nature of Case: personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: video footage

Keywords: surveillance footage, adverse inference, preservation letter, spoliation, Eleventh Circuit, prejudice, significant impairment, other available evidence

View Case Opinion

Brown v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (E.D. Pa, 2017)

Key Insight: whether the loss of a cell phone can give rise to an adverse inference re location data

Nature of Case: insurance fraud

Electronic Data Involved: lost cell phone

Keywords: spoliation; adverse inference

View Case Opinion

In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation – Case Opinion (Southern District of New York, 2017)

Key Insight: Defense was allowed to ask neutral questions about destruction of SDM data, even without intent to deprive, without using FRCP 37(e).

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: SDM data

Keywords: SDM, sensory diagnostic module, spoliation, class action

View Case Opinion

Tingle v. Hebert, No. 3:15-cv-00626-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. June 9, 2017)

Key Insight: Discovery requests must be proportional; limited to scope/time frame

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, defamation

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails, text messages

Keywords: Retaliation, discrimination, Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control

View Case Opinion

Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance (Northern District of Georgia, 2017)

Key Insight: Court used a spoliation test non-specific to electronic discovery, spoliation not found due to one defendant not in control of the evidence and the other destroying the evidence without bad faith and not when litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Collision

Electronic Data Involved: ECM data

Keywords: ECM, electronic control module, spoliation

View Case Opinion

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.