Key Insight: Third party provided date limited information to Plaintiff, Defendant sought entire image; Date Limited information provided to Plaintiff was all Plaintiff was required to produce.
Nature of Case: Trade Secrets, Bankruptcy, Civil Consipiracy
Electronic Data Involved: Forensic Image of Laptop
Keywords: forensic image; date-limited, third party
Key Insight: For Defendants? negligent (or even reckless) failure to preserve relevant video footage following Plaintiff?s release from jail despite the ?distinct possibility? of litigation in light of the injuries Plaintiff suffered while in custody and his specific threats to sue, the court imposed sanctions to redress the prejudice to Plaintiff and ordered that the court would tell the jury that the video was not preserved and that the parties could present evidence and argument regarding that failure for the jury?s consideration
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage from jail
Key Insight: Defendant had moved business documents to personal dropbox. when terminated, these were deleted, but potentially restored. Plaintiff wanted re-access to confirm deletion. Defendant moved for dismissal and was denied as Plaintiff had plead enough facts to indicate documents still possibly available to Defendant.
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract; Conversion; Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Electronic Data Involved: Personal Dropbox Containing Business Documents
Keywords: Motion to Dismiss; Access after employment
Key Insight: Whether deleted ESI and destroyed notebooks were relevant and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to find that spoliation was intentional or resulted in prejudice; whether sanction of reasonable costs is appropriate
Nature of Case: contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: deleted e-mail, deleted electronic records, hard-copy notebooks
Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, notebook, litigation hold, bad faith, prejudice, deleted, legal hold, negligence, retention policy, backups
Key Insight: Defendant had reviewed video recording twice and did not show area of spill and fall. Deleted recording per their normal 37 day video retention policy. Defendant moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued should be sanctioned by not granting order. Judge granted summary judgment.
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: Video Recording
Keywords: Summary Judgment; Retention Policy
Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s duty to preserve surveillance footage was triggered by the fact that it knew Defendant was robbed in its hotel, that the police were involved, and that both the police and Defendants ?were using the footage to investigate the incident? (perhaps evidenced by the preservation of different footage at the request of police), the court reasoned that ??mere knowledge of the accident and the possible causes of the accident? is not enough to create a duty to preserve evidence? and found that defendant?s spoliation claim failed
Nature of Case: Claims arising from robbery of hotel guest
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage
Key Insight: Addressing motion for sanctions for the loss of emails in third party custody (GoDaddy), Iron Mountain back ups, and miscellaneous computer files, the Magistrate Judge concluded: 1)that Exeter had a duty preserve reasoning that since 2009 it had been involved in other litigation involving the disclosure of its books, records and financial documents, and that Exeter therefore knew or should have known that the documents ?could be relevant to future litigation? and also found that even if the filing of the 2009 lawsuit (involving different parties) did not trigger the preservation obligation, receipt of a 2009 subpoena should have and that in any event, the duty to preserve arose no later than Exeter?s 2011 bankruptcy filing; 2)that Exeter?s loss of ESI was ?intentional and done in bad faith? absent evidence of any effort to ensure preservation or to contact the third-party providers to inform them of the duty; and 3) that as a result of the intentional loss, a presumption of relevance was warranted and therefore recommended a sanction of an permissive adverse inference at trial; upon Exeter?s objection, District Court adopted the sanctions recommendation entirely and indicated that ?[W]hen there has been intentional destruction of evidence by an officer of a closely held corporation, other officers of the closely held entity may be subject to sanctions, even if they did not have direct control of the evidence at issue.?
Nature of Case: Plaintiff claims that Defendants defrauded Exeter?s creditors by transferring funds from Exeter to themselves, certain trusts, and other entities.
Electronic Data Involved: Email in third-party custody, Iron Mountain backups, miscelaneous ESI
Key Insight: Addressing question of spoliation related to surveillance video of prison assaults, court concluded that ?traditional? spoliation analysis (as opposed to analysis pursuant to newly amended FRCP 37(e))
Nature of Case: Claims arising from assault in prison
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff also used data wiping software hours before turning computer over for forensic examination. Defendant granted default judgment.
Nature of Case: Repossession/Ownership
Electronic Data Involved: Files on Computer
Keywords: default judgment, contempt, data wipe
Key Insight: Plaintiff was arrested while police pursuing his brother. Videos from car were mis-labeled and therefore destroyed. Plaintiff could not show bad faith, so no adverse inference instruction.
Nature of Case: civil rights
Electronic Data Involved: Police Car Videos
Keywords: adverse inference; sanctions; bad faith
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.