Key Insight: Sanctions for failure to preserve. Plaintiff did not issue a litigation hold until 23 months after reasonable anticipation of litigation.
Nature of Case: Legal malpractice
Electronic Data Involved: ESI destroyed under plaintiff’s record destruction policies: Backup tapes, routine deletion of emails, erasure of hard drives/email accounts.
Keywords: Preservation, spoliation sanctions, adverse inference charge, litigation hold.
Key Insight: Plaintiff threatened legal action, but failed to have it’s vendor stop automatic deletion and did not preserve recrods when email system changed. Defendant was prejudiced by this spoilation. Court allowed witnesses to testify to spoilation and potential contents of those communications.
Nature of Case: incentive programs and Robinson-Patman Act violations
Electronic Data Involved: internal and external communications
Keywords: spoilation; vendor
Key Insight: Where surveillance footage of hallway in which alleged assault occurred was overwritten, the court reasoned there was no indication that the evidence was intentionally lost or destroyed, that the named defendants were not responsible for the video system, and that defendant was not ?materially prejudiced? because he could still testify as to what happened and therefore denied the motion for sanctions
Nature of Case: Alleged assault by prison officers and related claims
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Court concluded that, because plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence did not deprive defendant of any complete defense to any of plaintiff’s claims of liability, dismissal was inappropriate sanction; instead, appropriate sanction would be to instruct the jury that it could infer from plaintiff?s failure to preserve the hard drives and disks that they contained evidence favorable to defendant, and to exclude plaintiff?s proffered expert testimony regarding the likelihood that the unpreserved evidence contained usable software or source code; however, because court went on to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it denied defendant’s motion for sanctions as moot
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence, and violations of bailment
Electronic Data Involved: Source code, hard drives
Key Insight: Where plaintiff was fired for failure to lock a gate?which he disputed?during the pendency of separate EEOC investigations into plaintiff?s charges of discrimination and where the at-issue manager claimed to have viewed footage confirming the gate was unlocked but failed to preserve it, the court determined that Defendant was under a duty to preserve (?due to an ongoing EEOC investigation during the applicable time period, Wal-Mart?s own investigation into the alleged employee misconduct including a review of the video footage, and litigation being reasonably foreseeable?), that plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss because neither the at-issue manager?s testimony or emails were equivalents for the video, and that plaintiff showed ?more than mere negligence? in the destruction, the court ordered an adverse inference creating a presumption that ?Wal-Mart?s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual and that retaliation was the but-for cause of Plaintiff?s termination? and awarded attorney?s fees
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage
Key Insight: Where defendant attempted to preserve relevant video by assigning a part time maintenance/IT employee to copy the relevant portion but failed to discover that the wrong portion was copied before the tape was overwritten, the Magistrate Judge found that the failure to preserve the relevant footage was grossly negligent and recommended a mandatory adverse inference, that defendant be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony from witnesses who viewed the unavailable footage and that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney?s fees; the district court adopted the recommendations
Nature of Case: Claims of deliberate indifference to prisoner’s medical needs
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage
Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice EEOC?s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, indicating it may consider this ruling at a later date if presented with further evidence tending to show bad faith conduct by SunTrust; court would permit the EEOC to introduce evidence at trial concerning SunTrust?s video surveillance system, SunTrust?s policies relating to use and preservation of video surveillance footage, and SunTrust?s failure to preserve video footage at issue, where Suntrust isolated and carefully reviewed tapes to investigate (and partly validate) one plaintiff?s claims, but then put that same footage back into circulation to be taped over and did not retain or preserve the footage
Nature of Case: Sexual harassment
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage from bank’s security cameras
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
Key Insight: Where school did not keep records identifying the individuals who requested that hard drive of camera located inside school bus be removed, nor did school keep logs of who handled and/or viewed such hard drives once they were removed, and hard drive containing video footage of alleged assault was removed from subject school bus and then subsequently reinstalled on a different bus by persons unknown, resulting in overwriting of file containing segment that would have captured alleged assault, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions finding no evidence to support a conclusion that the act of reinserting the hard drive into another bus was undertaken in order to destroy adverse evidence as opposed to its being mere negligence in the handling of the hard drive, and no evidence to support conclusion that any employee of the school manually deleted the video files in an effort to destroy evidence; court would revisit issue if additional evidence came to light
Nature of Case: Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 claims that plaintiff was subject to unlawful peer-on-peer harassment that violated his constitutional rights, and that school failed to properly train its officials in recognizing and responding to sexual assault and harassment
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive from video camera installed on school bus where incident allegedly occurred
Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case
Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)
Electronic Data Involved: Photographs
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.