Key Insight: whether defendants acted with prejudice in not preserving “loop type system” video footage; whether spoliation sanctions apply for destroyed evidence
Nature of Case: Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force (cruel and unusual punishment)
Electronic Data Involved: medical records
Keywords: spoliation, preserve, prejudice, intent, bad faith, loop type system
Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable
Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings
Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering
Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs bad discovery behaviors included hiring a computer technician to work on her computer before producing it for inspection, including using C Cleaner to delete files; deleting several .pst files; and producing a seemingly incomplete set of documents from Facebook, the court called it ?an exceedingly close case? but, because of the lack of meaningful prejudice, declined to impose terminating sanctions and ordered an adverse inference and other evidentiary sanctions and that Defendants were entitled to recoup their fees related to the sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged sexual harassment on the job
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, Facebook (social network)
Key Insight: Plaintiff accused Defendant, its former officer (CEO), of accessing and copying proprietary materials and providing them to another corporation; court found Defendant?s failure to preserve notebooks and the contents of a discarded smartphone to be willful (but not in bad faith) and the failure to issue a litigation hold resulting in the loss of ESI to be grossly negligent; relevance was presumed as to the willfully destroyed materials and was established as to the ESI lost as the result of the litigation hold failure but, after reasoning that the prejudice resulting from the loss of the notebooks was ?clear?-based on their contents-the court indicated that prejudice resulting from the loss of the smartphone and other deletions was ?more complicated? where the ESI may still exist (on a preserved laptop), indicating that if they could not be recovered, the destruction would be prejudicial and warrant sanctions; for willful destruction of notebooks, court recommended that the presiding judge consider an adverse inference; for loss of contents of smartphone and other ESI, court indicated the sanctions were the to be decided by presiding judge and would depend on whether the information could be obtained from another source (i.e., the level of prejudice); no spoliation found as to at-issue laptop where defendant returned the laptop to an employee of the corporate owner, but where that employee was notified to preserve the contents and thus it was unclear if any ESI was lost
Nature of Case: Misappropriation of proprietary information
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy notebooks, emails/smartphone, ESI
Key Insight: On appeal, Supreme Court found that lower court?s failure to order default judgment for Defendant?s spoliation of potentially relevant surveillance video despite a request for preservation and the sophistication and experience to understand the need to preserve was not an abuse of discretion but did find that the failure to award a meaningful sanction was an abuse of discretion where the instruction that Defendant would not be allowed to discuss the surveillance video?which it claimed showed no evidence of the at-issue accident?unless Plaintiff brought it up put the Plaintiff in a bind such that if he brought up the destruction of the video, Defendant could argue it contained nothing, and thus take advantage of the video?s unavailability to rebut their claim; the case was remanded for a new trial
Nature of Case: Work-related injury
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff had a ?continuing business relationship? with Defendant despite the pending litigation and Defendant hosted Plaintiff?s emails on its servers, court rejected Plaintiff?s claim that Defendant?s changes to the email-archiving system resulted in a loss of Plaintiff?s emails where Plaintiff could provide no evidence of Defendant?s alleged access to Plaintiff?s emails and where Defendant credibly posited that Plaintiff had accidentally ?dragged and dropped? the missing email folders into the ?Notes? tab of the archived mailbox (where the emails were ultimately located); court also declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s initial refusal to assist Plaintiff to locate the emails (that it had requested) where it had no duty to do so, and where despite that lack of duty, it nonetheless ultimately made a good faith, but unsuccessful, search effort; Defendant?s litigation hold on Plaintiff?s email account to retain copies of messages that anyone attempted to delete did not warrant sanctions, despite Plaintiff?s claim that the hold was ?worse than spoliation? because ?unlike evidence unlawfully destroyed by a party, evidence placed in a litigation hold is still available to the party implementing the litigation hold?
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant violated his duty to preserve when he discarded his laptop after it allegedly crashed but declined to impose default judgement or an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith, the district court upheld the decision not to impose default judgment but, reasoning that the credibility of defendant?s explanation was best left to the jury, held that the jury would be instructed that if it found bad faith, it could infer the computer?s contents were unfavorable
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive
Key Insight: In this case, the court ordered preservation, including “interdiction of any document-destruction programs . . .” and defendant alleged that preservation of all contents of a proprietary publication application could slow down or crash the system and that installation of a new storage system would cost $18 million dollars and could take up to eight months to install. Accordingly, the defendant sought permission to employ an alternative preservation protocol, namely the use of key word search terms to identify materials to be preserved in a ?searchable environment not subject to auto-delete.? With the addition of one search term to be employed, the court approved Defendant?s proposal.
Nature of Case: Putative personal injury class action involving claims against numerous defendants for alleged sexual violence during World War II
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Plaintiff sought Defendant?s tax returns and document retention policies. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant in 2004 to provide cable television installation services. In 2010 Defendant tendered a workplace injury claim to Plaintiff for indemnification. Plaintiff?s insurance carrier denied coverage and the claim was left unpaid. In 2012, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was being acquired by another company. One day before the closing of the transaction, Defendant contacted the acquiring company and made repayment for the workplace injury claim ?a condition to assent to assignment? of the agreement. Plaintiff alleged tortious interference and sought Defendant?s tax returns to demonstrate its ability to pay punitive damages. Plaintiff further alleged spoliation claiming there were missing emails and sought documents regarding Defendant?s document retention policies. The Court denied Plaintiff?s Motion holding that the request for punitive damages cannot form the basis for financial worth discovery since Plaintiff failed to make a reasonable showing of tortious interference. Further, there was no spoliation given that Defendant located and produced the emails in question and so Defendant?s document retention policies were not relevant.
Nature of Case: Workplace injury claim
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for Township?s alleged failure to preserve relevant evidence where the Township believed that all disputes with Plaintiffs had been resolved, and thus had no anticipation of litigation or duty to preserve prior to the filing of the complaint, where there was no evidence that the at-issue evidence was destroyed after litigation had commenced, and where Plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant had acted with any ill motive or bad intent (bad faith) in failing to retain the documents plaintiff sought
Nature of Case: Constitutional claims related to land use
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.