Backup Tapes – Page 3 – Electronic Discovery Law

Jackson Family Wines, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., Inc., No. 11-5639 EMC (JSC), 2014 WL 595912 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions, where defendants never issued a litigation hold on marketing employee’s documents, never spoke to her about preserving documents, inexplicably deleted image of the her laptop six months after receiving the image from IBM pursuant to defendant?s ?leaver?s process,? waited over six months before notifying the court or plaintiffs about the destruction, and worse, made numerous representations to the court that consistently and vehemently sought to reassure the court that production of the employee?s documents was complete and irreproachable

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing image of departing marketing employee’s e-mail and other ESI

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, 95 A.3d 1264 (Del. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Delaware Supreme Court affirmed rulings of Court of Chancery in all respects, finding no error in setting the range of dates for production, requiring Wal-Mart to produce officer-level documents, requiring Wal-Mart to collect and search data from disaster recovery backup tapes for two additional custodians where Wal-Mart had voluntarily collected disaster tape recovery data for nine other custodians, and invoking the exception articulated in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), to find that IBEW was entitled to documents protected by attorney-client privilege and work product protection in Section 220 litigation

Nature of Case: Pursuant to title 8, section 220 of the Delaware Code, shareholder brought action against corporation for production of documents related to alleged bribery scandal

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster recovery tapes for certain records custodians and documents related to company’s compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Alter v. Rocky Pt. Sch. Dist., No. 13-1100 (JS)(AKT), 2014 WL 4966119 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

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

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Illiana Surgery and Med. Care Ctr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., NO. 2:07 cv 3, 2014 WL 1094455 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following evaluation of the relevant eight part test, court declined to shift the costs of producing emails stored on Defendant?s backup system pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (inaccessible data) but placed limitations on the discovery allowed and ordered Defendant to restore eight weeks of backup tapes at its own expense and to search them for the requested emails and invited Plaintiff to renew its motion if, after Defendant?s search was complete, it could show that ?further exploration? was necessary

Nature of Case: Insurance Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Knickerbocker v. Corinthian Colleges, No C12-1142JLR, 2014 WL 1356205 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that Defendant and its counsels? ?lackluster search for documents, failure to implement a litigation hold, deletion of evidence, refusal to cooperation with Plaintiffs in the discovery process (particularly as evidenced by its withholding of information regarding both the backup tapes and its interpretation of the parties? Stipulated Order), reliance on a recklessly false declaration, shifting litigation positions, and inaccurate representations to the court constitute bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith? and ordered payment of Plaintiffs? attorneys fees ?incurred due to Corinthian?s bad faith discovery practices? and also ordered fines against Defendant ($25,000) and its counsel ($10,000)

Nature of Case: Employment Litigation (discrimination, hostile work environment)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email, ESI on backup tapes

Mejia v. Charette, No. 12-cv-449-JD-LM, 2013 WL 6001081 (D.R.I. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, Court deferred ruling on plaintiff?s motion to compel to the extent it sought records from Wyatt Detention Facility (a third party), and directed defense counsel to request from the WDF the records plaintiff sought and to report on the status of such request at the next pretrial conference; court further denied defendants? request to limit their obligation to preserve and produce ESI so that they need not maintain that information beyond the regularly scheduled deletion, purge or overwriting date unless they have actual knowledge that responsive information actually is contained in the system or unless opposing party specifically requests it in writing, and to exclude backup tapes from litigation hold, as defendants did not provide any reason why their obligation to preserve all relevant ESI, including backup tapes or disks, should be voided, or why they should be excused from a party?s general duty to preserve relevant evidence once on notice of litigation

Nature of Case: Inmate at Wyatt Detention Facility asserted escessive force claims against four U.S. Marshals

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Frazer/Exton Dev., L.P., 503 B.R. 620 (Bankr. E.D. Penn. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied debtors? motion to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement with debtors? largest creditor and plan of reorganization because — notwithstanding that creditor failed to search all potential sources of ESI and failed to produce responsive documents in what court described as ?incompetent and reckless discovery foul-up? that should not have occurred — debtors could not, as a matter of law, obtain the relief they sought under Rule 60 and it would therefore be futile for the court to reopen the record for the purpose of allowing the debtors to file a time-barred Rule 60 motion

Nature of Case: Debtors sought to reopen their bankruptcy cases in order to obtain relief from settlement agreement and plan of reorganization

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5597547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

Tag:Backup Tapes