Backup Tapes – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, No. 10-2696 STA/TMP, 2012 WL 4361449 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Upon Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, court recognized two relevant trigger dates, the second of which expanded the initial scope of preservation, and found that Defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve relevant emails but declined to impose an adverse inference and instead ordered Defendant to bear the cost of restoring 33 backup tapes to determine if relevant information was contained thereon

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Fastenal Co., No. 4:10CV00317 BRW/JTR, 2011 WL 2115546 (E.D. Ark. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing discovery issues ?looming on the horizon? court indicated that there appeared to be no basis to require defendant to forensically image at-issue hard drives and, addressing whether defendant would be required to restore and review backup tapes which it claimed could cost $84,854,704. 90 (a number the court called ?absurdly high? on its face), found that it would be difficult for plaintiff to meet the seven factor test for good cause and that defendant had sufficiently objected to plaintiff?s request such that arguments that the backup tapes were not reasonably accessible had not been waived

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic image of hard drives, backup tapes

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

Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, 2011 WL 579039 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found backup tapes not reasonably accessible in light of the cost of restoration, review and production but granted plaintiff?s motion to compel where plaintiff?s showed ?good cause for some discovery? and held the motion in abeyance until further argument on cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Madere v. Compass Bank, No. A-10-CV-812 LY, 2011 WL 5155643 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of email requiring restoration of backup tapes where defendant?s expert averred that it would cost over $270,000 and require hundreds of hours to accomplish, where plaintiff?s expert could not ?ascertain an estimate for the actual cost,? and where ?even if the actual cost of restoring the backup tapes was only a fraction? of the estimated amount, it ?would still outweigh the amount [Plaintiff] seeks to recover?

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on backup tapes

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

Escamilla v. SMS Holdings Corp., No. 09-2120 ADM/JSM, 2011 WL 5025254 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court affirmed Magistrate Judge?s order requiring defendant to submit his computers for forensic examination, at his own expense, where defendant reinstalled an operating system less than two weeks after plaintiff filed a motion to compel and where, because of the loss of data, plaintiff was therefore prejudiced to an unknown extent?bad faith was not required for such an order; court affirmed order requiring corporate defendant to search hard drives of key employees, the image of a file and print server, and backup tapes dating back five years where the search was not overly broad and where defendant did not establish undue burden?despite its exorbitant estimate regarding backup tapes?in light of the large disparity between estimates from both parties, and where the court noted that much of the costs could have been avoided had SMS fulfilled its preservation duties and not converted to a less accessible format

Nature of Case: Employment litigation – sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Tag:Backup Tapes