Data Preservation – Page 22 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sweltic Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr, Inc. v. Foot Levelers, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-236, 2016 WL 1657922 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where third party refused to preserve potentially relevant evidence absent a court order and maintained a retention policy that would result in the automatic deletion of the at-issue information, court granted in part Plaintiff?s motion to compel preservation (finding that the requested scope of preservation appeared overly broad) but declined to compel forensic imaging

Nature of Case: Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Fax transmission reports and other ESI identifying fax numbers that received advertisements

Konica Minolta Bus. Sols., U.S.A., Inc. v. Lowery Corp., No. 15-cv-11253, 2016 WL 4537847 (Aug. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Assessing motion for sanctions, court found that Plaintiff established Defendants? duty to preserve (preservation requests were sent to all defendants) and that ESI was lost but found that further discovery was needed to address whether two of four ?predicate elements? of Rule 37(e) were met, namely whether reasonable steps were taken to preserve and whether the lost ESI could be restored or replaced through additional discovery, reasoning that ?[a]bsent sufficient proof that reasonable steps were not taken, KMBS is not entitled to relief under 37(e), even if it is shown that the ESI was lost. Sanctions are not automatic? and that ?[f]urther, a party cannot be sanctioned where the ability exists to restore or replace the ESI from other sources.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stinson v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2016 WL 54684 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court found Defendants? discovery failures, including failing to implement a litigation hold for three years, failing to adequately communicate the hold, and failure to ensure compliance with the litigation hold were grossly negligent and imposed a permissive adverse inference as a sanction; court?s analysis included the admonition that ?the reasonableness or unreasonableness of one party?s demands does not determine the scope of the other party?s obligation to preserve documents?

Nature of Case: Class action civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: ESI: email, text messages, har copy

Botey v. Green, No. 3:12-CV-01520, 2016 WL 1337665 (M.D. Pa. April 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the court granted in part Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where ESI was automatically destroyed despite a duty to preserve as the result of Defendant?s employees? failure to forward Plaintiff?s notice of litigation and request for preservation to corporate headquarters. Declining to impose an adverse inference, the court ordered that Defendants would not be allowed to rely on the destroyed records or other evidence designed to show their contents.

Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Boyington v Percheron Field Servs., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-90, 2016 WL 6068813 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of all emails sent to or from any of the Plaintiffs through a Percheron account. The Court found the emails were relevant because they may shed light on informal work policies, hours worked, and serve as a potential cross-reference to the other records kept by Defendant. Analyzing proportionality, the Court concluded that the importance of the issues (to the Plaintiffs), the amount in controversy (alleged to be ?in excess of several million dollars?), the resources of the parties, the parties? relative access to the information and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues weighed in favor of Plaintiffs/production. Regarding whether the burden of discovery outweighed the benefit, the Court acknowledged Defendant?s claim that the review ?would likely cost $735,000-$798,964 and take a team of 20 attorneys 12 weeks to complete,? but reasoned that the Court?s refusal to compel production of certain email categories would lessen the estimated costs and that Defendant?s inability to provide certain data had caused Plaintiffs to have to ?puzzle together damages? and concluded that the request did not ?run afoul? of proportionality. The court also relied on Defendants prior agreement to produce the emails. Addressing Plaintiffs? motion to compel information regarding Defendant?s preservation efforts, the court ordered production of the names of those that received litigation holds and related information, but declined to order the litigation holds themselves.

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Information re: litigation hold notices

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant admitted to deleting emails while aware of potential litigation but claimed he thought the emails were backed up and that he never deleted anything from Plaintiff?s server, the court called the evidence ?troubling? but declined to impose spoliation sanctions because the evidence of bad faith was insufficient, citing in pat Defendant?s own equivocation for why he deleted the emails and his admitted practice of deleting emails in the ordinary course of business and the fact that the emails he admitted to forwarding to a personal account and then deleting were eventually produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Benefield v. MStreet Entm?t, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1000, 2016 WL 374568 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where, despite a request from Plaintiff?s counsel to preserve all communications between plaintiff and defendants or their employees AND Defendants? OWN REQUEST that Plaintiff preserve information from her cellular phones, Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant text messages, the court rejected defendants? arguments that ?due to the nature of text message communications and the cellular devices they are stored on?a requirement to preserve text messages from private cellular phones is unduly burdensome and an invasion of privacy? and found that the messages should have been preserved and indicated that a ?spoliation instruction to the jury? would be given at trial but declined to preclude defendants? reliance on plaintiff?s text messages at trial or to order defendants to pay fees and cost associated with the extraction of plaintiffs? text messages from her own phone

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Mazzei v. Money Store, —Fed. Appx.—, 2016 WL 3902256 (2d Cir. July 15, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in declining to impose an adverse inference for failure to preserve ESI in an accessible format and instead awarding costs and attorneys fees where the at issue system “contained only ‘tangential information'” and where Plaintiff failed to seek discovery from other sources; Circuit court’s analysis noted recently amended Rule 37(e)’s required finding of intent to impose an adverse inference and that the District Court “specifically found that defendants did not act with such intent”

Nature of Case: Class action: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in third party custody but under control of defendants

Orologio of Short Hills Inc. v Swatch Grp. (U.S.) Inc., 653 Fed. Appx. 134 (3rd Cir. 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court affirmed District Court?s denial of Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and issue sanctions on alleged spoliation, absent a finding that the hard-copy tapes at issue were destroyed in bad faith. The evidence in the record indicated the tapes were destroyed for the sole reason that the Defendant did not wish to pay a storage fee for the tapes; there was no reference to the litigation in the emails regarding the destruction.

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Robinson Patman Act and NJ Franchise Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard-copy tapes containing “tagged television commercials”

Friedman v. Philadelphia Parking Auth., No. 14-6071, 2016 WL 6247470 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant failed to preserve relevant evidence for reasons including its failure to timely issue a litigation hold following receipt of a letter threatening litigation and its lack of understanding related to the migration of its data to a new archival system resulting in the loss of ESI (e.g., Defendant was notified of but failed to address an ?over limit folder problem? related to two custodians, failed to confirm that data had successfully migrated before instructing employees to delete information ,etc.) but where Defendant undertook SUBSTANTIAL efforts to address its discovery defects and Plaintiff was unable to identify any specific information that was lost (where much was received from third parties or eventually produced as a result of Defendant?s remedial efforts) or to establish an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose sanctions pursuant to recently amended Rule 37(e); instead, pursuant to Rule 37(a) the court ordered Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses necessary to prepare and file their motion for sanctions; regarding Defendant?s lack of a document retention policies and potential loss of data before implementation of its archive after its duty to preserve was triggered, the court indicated that prejudice was ?speculative? but invited a motion from Plaintiff for ?evidentiary rulings? if desired

Tag:Data Preservation