Backup Media Recycling – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a store employee attempted to copy the relevant surveillance footage but was unsuccessful and where the failure was not discovered until after the tape had been overwritten, the court found defendant?s loss of the relevant footage was negligent and imposed an adverse inference that the lost footage would have been unfavorable to the defendant

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video

In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 770 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (N.D. Ga. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Providing significant analysis of the issue of spoliation, court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for defendant?s alleged failure to adequately preserve evidence where government?s investigation did not trigger a duty to preserve evidence as to the class action plaintiffs in this case and thus, no duty to preserve existed for purposes of the spoliation analysis; court also found that even where duty to preserve existed, plaintiffs also failed to establish prejudice resulting from the alleged failure to preserve and that defendant acted in bad faith by failing to prevent the loss of ESI pursuant to defendant?s usual document retention policies and the automatic functions of its server

Nature of Case: Class action related to alleged collusion in implementation baggage fees

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

United States v. Fetter, No. 3:10 CR 411, 2011 WL 1060301 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where video of defendant?s alleged destruction of evidence while in a holding cell was automatically recorded over pursuant to the department?s standard policy and was not preserved because none of the officers involved in the investigation realized the images from cameras in the cells were recorded (as opposed to merely ?stream[ed]? to allow observation), court found no bad faith and thus no violation of due process arising from destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence (as opposed to exculpatory evidence)

Nature of Case: Criminal (sex trafficking)

Electronic Data Involved: Video of defendant while in holding cell

Miller v. City of Plymouth, No. 2:09-CV-205 JVB, 2011 WL 1458419 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court upheld ruling that defendants did not destroy video evidence thereby warranting sanctions where plaintiff sought police recordings starting in 2004, but where no retention policy existed during that time period except officers? discretion to retain recording and many of the requested recordings had been recorded over long before plaintiffs? traffic stop; where the relevant officer was not asked to save tape of certain traffic stops until 2010; where plaintiffs? accusations of spoliation assumed that relevant video existed and ?overlooked the significant trouble Defendants have experienced in operating and maintaining their digital systems;? and where defendants had no control over the fact that the systems hard drive recorded over old data

Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic stop

Electronic Data Involved: Video

United States v. Univ. Health Servs., Inc., No. 1:07cv000054, 2011 WL 2559552 (W.D. Va. June 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve video surveillance tape where the parties initially agreed that the tapes for the thirty days preceding the subpoena need not be saved, thus creating the understanding that tape recycling could proceed as usual, and where, as a result of this agreement, defendants could not be said to have failed to preserve in bad faith; court also declined to infer spoliation absent evidence that additional, relevant ESI existed that had not been produced

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act and The VA Fraud Against Taxpayers Act

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Britton v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 4:11cv32-RH/WCS, 2011 WL 3236189 (N.D. Fla. June 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant?s employee(s) were found to have allowed the loss of relevant video surveillance tape, despite repeated notification of its relevance and requests for preservation, and to have done so intentionally and in bad faith, court declined to enter default judgment but precluded defendant?s presentation of certain defenses and ordered payment of attorney?s costs and fees related to the motion for sanctions and payment of half of such costs and fees related to a prior motion in which defendant?s dishonesty regarding the existence of the at issue vide resulted in costs to the plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged wrongful detention of teens for shoplifting

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

English v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00080-ECR-VPC, 2011 WL 3496092 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of surveillance tape where duty to preserve arose upon request for the evidence-three months after the fall occurred- and where plaintiff did not show that defendant destroyed or lost the video and photographs with ?culpable intent or in a negligent and possibly reckless manner after Defendant?s duty to preserve the evidence arose.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Gentex Corp. v. Sutter, No. 3:07-CV-1269, 2011 WL 5040893 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s employees? intentional spoliation, including use of scrubbing software and destruction of CD-ROMS, court imposed default judgment against the employees but declined to impose sanctions on defendant corporation where questions of fact remained as to whether it engaged in spoliation

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and PA Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Tag:Backup Media Recycling