Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 14

Pac. Packaging Prods., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV200904320, 2014 WL 2766735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After ten days of hearings on Plaintiff?s Emergency Motion for Judgment on All Claims Based upon Defendants? Fraud Upon the Court, court found that defendants violated preservation order and deliberately ignored preliminary injunction requiring defendants to turn over all written or digital materials taken from or generated by plaintiff, or derived in whole or in part from documents generated by plaintiff, that contain customer lists, pricing information or similar information, and not to retain copies of such materials, and that defendants spoliated evidence and committed a fraud upon the court; appropriate sanction was the entry of default against defendants, dismissal of the defendants? counterclaims, and an order requiring defendants to compensate plaintiff for attorneys? fees and costs incurred in litigating the motion; parties to submit memoranda describing their views regarding the extent of the default established and the future course of the litigation

Nature of Case: Distributer sued former employees who formed competing company

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops, hard drives and other electronic storage devices

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ferriggi v. Best Yet Market of Astoria, Inc., No. 8564/2013, 2014 WL 5334000 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve or to make diligent efforts to retrieve surveillance video, but that loss of video did not fatally deprive plaintiff of means to prosecute his action given that witness who viewed the videotape and grocery store worker who unpacked boxes near accident location were available to testify, and accident report and medical response reports provided plaintiff with ability to prove proximate cause of accident; trial court would fashion appropriate negative inference charge against defendant based upon its failure to preserve the videotape and defendant would be precluded from offering testimony at trial to contradict plaintiff’s claim of adequate notice or that defendant created the condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall

Nature of Case: Slip and fall accident at supermarket

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Ackerman v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-CV-42 (SNR/JSM), 2014 WL 258565 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Alter v. Rocky Pt. Sch. Dist., No. 13-1100 (JS)(AKT), 2014 WL 4966119 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding court?s finding that defendants lost materials due to their negligence in failing to: (1) institute a litigation hold until more than two years after plaintiff filed her notice of claim, (2) discuss a litigation hold with named individual defendants and other key players, (3) preserve all ESI regarding plaintiff from named individual defendants and all key custodians in separate backup tapes or in some other medium, or (4) preserve work-related ESI utilized by key players on their personal computers or other devices, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions as it found no intent on the part of defendants to spoliate material evidence and plaintiff failed to meet burden of showing with some degree of factual detail that lost materials were relevant or helpful in prosecuting her claim; court further denied plaintiff?s request for appointment of independent forensic computer expert, but did impose $1,500 sanction against school district and its counsel given that court found merit to some of plaintiff?s arguments

Nature of Case: Workplace discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07-CV-7767 (AKH)(KNF), 2014 WL 5364100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendants? repeated failure to properly search for, locate and produce audio recordings, their inability to account for the audio recordings? disappearance, and their conflicting representations to the court and plaintiff about the existence of the recordings, as well as their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate email messages and their lack of explanation for the ?human error? they claimed was responsible for the delay, warranted a finding of bad faith conduct that prejudiced plaintiff; court declined to impose extreme sanction of striking defendants? pleadings and instead imposed an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the spoliated audio recordings, monetary sanctions representing plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred in connection with motion, and the retaking of certain depositions at defendants? expense

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and various business torts

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings, email

Black Diamond Mining Co. v. Genser, No. 12-125-ART, 2014 WL 3611329 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court addressed motion for sanctions and found that accused spoliators had acted intentionally and/or negligently, but not in bad faith; court found that sanctions were ?unwarranted? for the negligent loss of certain email attachments because of defendant?s failure to ?access documents in an archive while gathering the original emails?- even despite finding that defendant acted with a ?culpable state of mind? – where plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of the attachments? relevance (court noted that defendant did not ?actively delete the attachments? but rather its agents ?forgot to take steps to preserve the documents before they were deleted from the archive?); for individual actors? negligent and intentional failures to preserve ESI and hard copy documents, the court found that the ?test of relevance [was] satisfied? and imposed a permissive adverse inference, but declined to order reimbursement of the Trustee?s fees or the costs of bringing the motion

Electronic Data Involved: Email attachments, ESI, hard copy

Freedman v. Weatherford Int?l Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121(LAK)(JCF), 2014 WL 4547039 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered 18 emails from “critical custodians” that were produced not by defendant but by a third party as new evidence to support motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to compel, court noted differences in search terms used in respective searches and opined that requests for discovery regarding a party?s discovery efforts should be ?closely scrutinized in light of the danger of extending the already costly and time consuming discovery process ad infinitum?; rejecting plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, court observed: ??[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection.? . . . Weatherford has reviewed ?millions of documents and [produced] hundreds of thousands,? comprising ?nearly 4.4 million pages? in this case. It is unsurprising that some relevant documents may have fallen through the cracks.?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Klayman v. City Pages, No. 5:13-cv-143-Oc-22PRL, 2014 WL 5426515 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel given broad scope of the requests and plaintiff’s limited showing as to relevance, and defendants’ representation that they had produced all the materials upon which they relied in writing the subject publications; court further denied request for appointment of third party to conduct forensic examination of defendants’ work and personal computers, telephone records and cell phone records, finding that plaintiff’s conclusory and speculative assertions that defendants were concealing evidence were inadequate to meet his burden of showing good cause for such an invasive computer examination

Nature of Case: Defamation claims based on statements made in three newspaper articles

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection