Key Insight: Routine deletion of emails/lack of archival service leads to sanctions, but may not be considered intentionally depriving opposing counsel depending on the circumstances
Nature of Case: Trade-dress infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Keywords: sanctions, preclusion order, beads
Key Insight: Discovery costs must be proportional to the amount in controversy ($20 million in dispute allows for at least $13,000 in discovery costs)
Nature of Case: Contract breach
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents/communications
Keywords: Backup tapes, proportionality, catastrophic failure
Key Insight: was there a duty to preserve, were reasonable steps taken to avoid loss of data, can lost data be restored or replaced, was other party prejudiced by loss
Nature of Case: employment law, intellectual property
Electronic Data Involved: unknown
Keywords: spoliation, intent to deprive, relevance of data, measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice
Key Insight: failure to review backup tapes, attorney’s fees
Nature of Case: contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: email, backup tapes
Keywords: destruction of laptop, key employee, prejudice, duty to preserve, adverse inference, retention policy
Key Insight: proportionality
Nature of Case: class action
Electronic Data Involved: backup tapes
Keywords: undue burden, statistical sampling, restoration, reasonably accessible, cooperation, interrogatory, relevance
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: Court compelled limited production from backup tapes and declined to shift costs despite Defendant?s production of archived emails where Defendant failed to turn off its auto-purge and the purged emails would not, therefore, be located in the archive and where Defendant failed to specify the alleged burden and expense and Plaintiff agreed to limit their request; Defendant was required to search its SharePoint site where it utilized the site to communicate with employees, where many documents referred to the SharePoint, and where Defendant did not claim that the information was not reasonably accessible
Nature of Case: Trademark
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, SharePoint
Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion to compel production of emails from Plaintiff?s former employee where Plaintiff?s initial production included some communications from the at-issue employee, where Plaintiff had already conducted a second search that did not yield additional documents, where the emails of the former employee had been moved off of active servers thus requiring the initiation of disaster recovery protocols to conduct an additional search, and where the emails of other parties to the potentially relevant communications remained on the active servers and had also been searched; court also noted that Defendant had deposed the former employee for 6 hours
Electronic Data Involved: Email of former employee
Key Insight: Where Special Master declined to recommend spoliation sanctions but recommended $1,855,255.09 in monetary sanctions ?to compensate Plaintiffs for the additional time and expenses that they have incurred as a result of Delta?s failure to comply with discovery obligations,? including Defendant?s delayed identification and production of relevant evidence (including backup tapes and other ESI), the District Court agreed that monetary sanctions were appropriate but found that a higher amount was warranted and thus increased the monetary sanctions to $2,718,795.05
Nature of Case: Antitrust (Bag fees)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes
Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.