Backup Tapes – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kleiner v. Burns, 48 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 644, 2000 WL 1909470 (D. Kan. Dec. 15, 2000)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel disclosure of all relevant computerized data under former Rule 26(a)(1), court observed: “As used by the advisory committee, ‘computerized data and other electronically-recorded information’ includes, but is not limited to: voice mail messages and files, back-up voice mail files, e-mail messages and files, backup e-mail files, deleted e-mails, data files, program files, backup and archival tapes, temporary files, system history files, web site information stored in textual, graphical or audio format, web site log files, cache files, cookies, and other electronically-recorded information.”

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement (posting of copyrighted photographs on web site)

Electronic Data Involved: All voice mails, email, web sites, web pages, and other relevant electronic data

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

Hagemeyer N. Am., Inc. v. Gateway Data Sci. Corp., 222 F.R.D. 594 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Adopting Zubulake and McPeek approaches, court ordered defendant to restore a sampling of five backup tapes selected by the plaintiff; parties would thereafter be required to make additional submissions addressing whether the burden or expense of satisfying the entire request was proportionate to the likely benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Assoc., 728 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Trial court erred in not dismissing defendants’ counterclaim and third party complaint as sanction for spoliation of evidence — contrary to court’s orders, defendants purged databases and produced backup tapes that were compromised and unusable

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that it was not in default of license agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases and backup tapes

Tag:Backup Tapes