Data Preservation – Page 30 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ballai v. Kiewit Power Constructors, Co., No. 110166, 2015 WL 423795 (Kan. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court of Appeals of Kansas found no abuse of discretion by the district court for failing to order sanctions related to the recycling of the laptop computer used by appellant during his employment, as the district court did not issue an order to preserve and there is no statutory or common-law duty to preserve evidence in Kansas; court further found no abuse of discretion by the district court for excluding evidence of recycling the computer; court also found that a chat log was relevant, material, and probative and the appellant was protected from prejudice because the district court only allowed the redacted version of the chat log into evidence.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; Chat Log

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

Advantor Sys. Corp. v. DRS Technical Servs., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-533-Orl-31DAB, 2015 WL 403308 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: The Magistrate Judge denied Advantor?s motion for sanctions against DRS for intentional bad faith spoliation of evidence, finding that sanctions were not warranted because there was no showing that the destroyed evidence was critical to litigate the case issues. DRS had a duty to preserve the contents of a laptop that was used by an employee who was hired away from Advantor and subsequently fired by DRS after receiving notice from Advantor that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Despite having a duty to preserve the contents of the laptop, DRS reformatted the laptop and erased files that were potentially proprietary to Advantor and in violation of their Nondisclosure Agreement. However, Advantor failed to show that the files contained relevant information critical to the case or that DRS was aware the files were on the laptop. Despite the unexplained reformatting of the laptop, sanctions were not granted.

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive

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

Hosch v. BAE Sys. Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00825 (AJT/TCB), 2014 WL 1681694 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered dismissal of Plaintiff?s claims with prejudice and payment of Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred for numerous discovery motions and forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s electronic devices for Plaintiff?s bad faith spoliation including defiance of the court?s discovery orders by refusing to submit certain devices and accounts for forensic inspection and by refusing to produce certain information and the destruction of ESI by wiping both his iPhone and Blackberry device, among other things

Nature of Case: Employment litigation (harassment, retaliation)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic inspection of devices (iPhone, Blackberry)and accounts

U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Hofioni, No. 2:13-cv-1770 LLK AC, 2014 WL 172336 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Motion for spoliation sanctions denied without prejudice where plaintiff argued that individual defendants violated their duty to preserve by continuing to use their personal electronic devices after receiving notice of the action and not “quarantining” the devices pending forensic imaging, as plaintiff did not make a specific showing that spoliation had, in fact, occurred; testimony of plaintiff’s forensic experts was mere speculation as neither expert identified any actual loss of data nor provided any forensic analysis of the personal electronic devices at issue

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on individual defendants’ personal electronic devices

Wang v. Regatta Condo. Assoc., No. 1-12-3450, 2014 WL 632412 (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: No error for trial court to grant summary judgment on plaintiff’s spoliation claim, a form of negligence under Illinois law, where there was no duty to preserve surveillance video, the record did not establish that defendants’ failure to preserve the video was intentional or that the video was adverse, and even if defendants had a duty to preserve the video, plaintiff failed to prove sufficient facts to establish that the loss of the video was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s inability to prove her underlying lawsuit

Nature of Case: Slip-and-fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage of skip-and-fall accident

Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, No. 09-1364 (CKKK), 964 F.Supp.2d 81 (2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 4696814 (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions for plaintiff’s intentional destruction of digital tape recording device as dismissal would be disproportionate to prejudice to defendant caused by misconduct, court ruled that strong adverse inference was appropriate and, for purposes of resolving the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, court would assume that the recording device would have revealed the plaintiff was intentionally recording conversations of co-workers without their consent

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Digital recording device and tape

Tag:Data Preservation