Backup Tapes – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2007 WL 486633 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on city’s overwriting of backup tapes and failure to preserve computer’s hard drive, where subject computer had been reassigned and its hard drive re-imaged before discovery requests were served, missing evidence was not crucial to plaintiff’s claims, and destruction of the material was not done in bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive and backup tapes

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. La. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions but not adverse inference instruction where defendant negligently failed to implement adequate litigation hold and preserve electronic evidence, but evidence was insufficient to show defendant acted in bad faith or with culpable state of mind or that plaintiff had suffered any prejudice

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and backup tapes

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court applied Zubulake factors and granted in part defendant?s motion to shift costs, holding that defendant was entitled to recover 30 percent of the costs of restoring and searching backup tapes for responsive emails of one former employee, stating: “[I]f a party creates its own burden or expense by converting into an inaccessible format data that it should have reasonably foreseen would be discoverable material at a time when it should have anticipated litigation, then it should not be entitled to shift the costs of restoring and searching the data.”

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant’s excuses for extended delay in producing itemization of withdrawals in a format usable by plaintiff, and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reasonable cost of attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for contempt of court’s prior order

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Billing records, backup tapes, DVDs

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortgage Co., 2006 WL 2848575 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court rejected trustee’s request for entry of default judgment based upon based on law firm’s failure to retain and timely produce relevant documents and electronically-stored information, but found that monetary sanctions were appropriate; trustee awarded his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing all discovery in the adversary proceeding

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Bedford, LLC v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3616434 (Wash. App. Dec. 11, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in denying motion for curative jury instructions, a sanction of default, and, after the verdict, a new trial, based upon defendant’s failure to produce a draft expert report; finding no misconduct, trial court had observed: “While I agree that . . . hard copies of draft [expert] reports are discoverable, I am aware of no legal principle that would require a testifying expert witness to separately retain all electronic drafts, including those that were overridden or subsumed during the drafting process.”

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Draft expert report

Tag:Backup Tapes