Data Preservation – Page 29 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-2089-TCB, 2015 WL 4635729 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Special Master declined to recommend spoliation sanctions but recommended $1,855,255.09 in monetary sanctions ?to compensate Plaintiffs for the additional time and expenses that they have incurred as a result of Delta?s failure to comply with discovery obligations,? including Defendant?s delayed identification and production of relevant evidence (including backup tapes and other ESI), the District Court agreed that monetary sanctions were appropriate but found that a higher amount was warranted and thus increased the monetary sanctions to $2,718,795.05

Nature of Case: Antitrust (Bag fees)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Spotted Horse v. BNSF Ry. Co., 350 P.3d 52 (Mont. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where district court abused its discretion when it declined to impose a meaningful sanction on railroad for allowing destruction of accident scene video footage during its pre-litigation investigation, the Court remanded for a new trial and ordered the district court to fashion a sanction that would satisfy the remedial and deterrent goals of sanctions for the spoliation of evidence, but the Court also said that district court?s refusal to grant injured machinist?s request for a default judgment as an evidentiary sanction for spoliation was not an abuse of discretion because it was not possible to know if the destruction was intentional or inadvertent

Nature of Case: Workplace injury

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video surveillance recording

Bruno v. Bozzuto?s, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00874, 2015 WL 5098952 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: On motion for reconsideration of three discovery orders, the court found no error in the lower court?s determination that Plaintiff?s admitted contemplation of litigation was sufficient to trigger her obligation to preserve, noting the lower court?s reliance on case law that ?the knowledge of a potential ? claim is deemed sufficient to impose a duty to preserve evidence?; court indicated that evidence contradicting Plaintiff?s claim that a third party still maintained the at-issue records was sufficient to allow the court to revisit the issue and to find that plaintiff acted in bad faith and also noted that in the Third Circuit, bad faith was not required to impose an adverse inference; addressing prejudice, court dismissed the proposition that Defendant?s access to at-issue evidence years earlier was sufficient to undercut any prejudice, noting that Defendant?s experts had not had access to the evidence; court found no clear error in the imposition of monetary sanctions for spoliation of evidence prior to trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., Inc, No. 3:15-mc-11-K-BN, 2015 WL 12731762 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge concluded that absent evidence of a special relationship or circumstance that imposed a duty to preserve evidence, a third party did not have an obligation to preserve evidence before it was served with a subpoena, even though it was aware of potential litigation against a party with whom it had a close working relationship. Where the non-party was ordered to search for and produce all responsive information but limited its search to its ShareFile and failed to adequately investigate whether responsive information existed on its computers and other devices, the Magistrate judge reasoned that compliance required more than ?simply asking current employees if they have responsive documents? and concluded that third party?s mere survey of current employees (omitting an employee with a difficult personality) as to whether they had responsive emails without an attempt to search or forensically image any devices in its custody failed to satisfy the Discovery Order?s request to make ?all reasonable efforts to search? for potentially relevant documents, violating Rule 45(g).

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV214-075, 2015 WL 171236 (S.D. Ga Jan. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Plaintiff moved for spoliation sanctions after Defendant stated in deposition they took accident scene photographs, but did not provide the photographs and stated all accident photographs had been provided. Plaintiff claimed Defendant?s sole possession was circumstantial evidence Defendant acted affirmatively in destroying the photographs. However, Court would not infer bad faith because it was possible ?the photographs were lost or destroyed haphazardly,? and concluded circumstantial evidence cannot prove bad faith ?without any evidence that the loss or destruction of the photographs was, or could only be, due to a deliberate, intentional act of Defendant or its agent.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs of slip and fall scene

Scott v. Moniz, No. 3:14-CV-5684-RJB, 2015 WL 38223705 (W.D. Wash. June 19, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Failure to preserve emails after defaulting to regular document retention policies based on mistaken belief that Plaintiff had not appealed the dismissal of her case was ?at least negligent,? but court continued motion subject to renoting when discovery was complete to allow for an evaluation of prejudice

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Malibu Media v. Ricupero, No. 2:14?cv?821 2015, 2015 WL 4273463 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 2015 WL 1090180 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for temporary restraining order which requested restrictions on defendant?s assets, and orders prohibiting destruction of evidence, expediting discovery, allowing plaintiff access to defendant?s email and social media accounts, and for the return of a laptop because the court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. In asserting it would suffer irreparable harm, plaintiff argued defendant had demonstrated she would not observe her obligation to preserve evidence, but provided no evidence in support of this claim. Stating that ?suspicions are not a proper ground for injunctive relief,? the Court noted that counsel for each defendant were ?expected to advise their clients of their duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence and the serious consequences for failing to do so,? but denied further relief.

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email, social media, laptop

Moulton v. Bane, No. 14-cv-265-JD, 2015 WL 7776892 (S.D.N.H. Dec. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendant unintentionally lost text messages when his service provider failed to transfer those text messages to his new phone?despite his request to transfer ?everything??and where the texts were later recovered by a forensic analysist, court declined to impose ?punitive sanctions? and ordered Defendant to pay the cost of retrieving the messages

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages (WhatsApp)

Ballard v. Williams, No. 3:10-cv-01456, 2015 WL 179071 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where surveillance footage of hallway in which alleged assault occurred was overwritten, the court reasoned there was no indication that the evidence was intentionally lost or destroyed, that the named defendants were not responsible for the video system, and that defendant was not ?materially prejudiced? because he could still testify as to what happened and therefore denied the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Alleged assault by prison officers and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Tag:Data Preservation