Tag:Backup Tapes

1
United States v. Renzi, 2010 WL 1417475 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2010)
2
MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)
3
Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)
4
Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)
5
Pitney Bowes Gov. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010)
6
Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)
7
D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)
8
Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)
9
Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Dev. Co., 2010 WL 2034699 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010)
10
State of California ex rel Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 2010 WL 3991298 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010):

United States v. Renzi, 2010 WL 1417475 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendants accused the government of spoliation of all disks (originals and copies) containing relevant data from a particular computer system and requested dismissal of the indictment against them as a result, court denied the motion for dismissal upon determining that defendants failed to establish the materiality of the data such that its destruction (intentional or otherwise) was a constitutional violation and where a complete copy of the data existed on a backup tape seized later in the investigation

Nature of Case: Criminal – Mail fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored on JENKON system

MLM Props., LLC v. Country Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1948609 (D. Or. May 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the court ordered plaintiffs to pay defendant?s expenses and fees related to a motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s delayed production of documents previously characterized as unrecoverable due to a damaged backup tape, court denied motion for additional sanctions where plaintiffs argued no prejudice resulted from the delay and where the court found no evidence to justify sanctions beyond those already imposed

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract and intentional inter-ference with economic relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Martinez-Hernandez v. Butterball LLC, 2010 2089251 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s search requests were unreasonable and unduly burdensome and where defendant?s proposed ESI search could ?be reasonably expanded to search for relevant information without becoming unduly burdensome?, court ordered the parties to continue negotiating to identify 25 agreed upon search terms to search relevant custodians? reasonably accessible data; court found backup tapes ?not readily accessible because of undue burden or cost? and ordered defendant to run the agreed upon search terms ?only on reasonably accessible sources, such as active and archived data of network computers?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Makrakis v. Demelis, 2010 WL 3004337 (Mass. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiffs? request for production of emails stored on backup tapes would impose an unreasonable burden and expense where defendant provided evidence of the high cost of restoring the tapes and where plaintiff failed to adequately narrow the request or explain why other sources of discovery were insufficient, but, recognizing that the tapes could contain relevant information, ordered that plaintiff be allowed, at their own expense, ?to obtain a sampling? of the emails stored on the backup tapes and that if the circumstances warranted it, that plaintiff be allowed to move for further discovery

Nature of Case: Claims for injuries resulting from improper administration of medication

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Harkabi v. Sandisk Corp., 08 Civ. 8203 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug, 23, 2010)

Key Insight: For failing to preserve the laptops issued to plaintiffs while working for defendant, the court found defendant was ?at a minimum? negligent and indicated that an adverse inference would be crafted after all the evidence had been received. For ?prolonged delay? in producing relevant emails the court denied terminating sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $150,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Electronic Data Involved: Data on laptops, emails

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

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Dev. Co., 2010 WL 2034699 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010)

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

State of California ex rel Fowler v. Caremark RX, LLC, 2010 WL 3991298 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2010):

Key Insight: Where defendants resisted production of electronically stored information and sought to shift the costs of such production to plaintiff by presenting affidavits and expert testimony regarding the expected cost of production which, in large part, was the result of defendants? lack of a data retrieval system for archived information and its failure to suspend archiving documents despite the commencement of related litigation in 2004, and where it was revealed that the expert testimony presented lacked sufficient foundation, the court held that defendants had acted in bad faith and could no longer be trusted and awarded plaintiffs? fees and costs in the amount of $42,978.43; affirmed on appeal

Nature of Case: Violation of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Archived ESI

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.