Data Preservation – Page 32 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp v. Banco BRJ S.A., 11-CV-1529 (KMW) 2014 WL 7051380 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court found Plaintiff committed spoliation when a computer containing key documents was destroyed. Court imposed sanctions of precluding evidence derived from the computer from being presented at trial and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney fees and costs. Upon review, Court upheld the spoliation ruling but imposed a mandatory adverse inference instead of the preclusion order. Court agreed that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve, was culpable in the destruction of the evidence, and the data that was destroyed was relevant to the Defendant?s claims. The court further elaborated that Plaintiff?s duty to preserve did not end when the computer allegedly crashed, and that Plaintiff should have made reasonable efforts to recover the data it contained. Saying that the spoliation prejudiced the defendant in a ?severe way? that can only be corrected by a ?substantial sanction,? the Court found that a mandatory adverse inference was the best way to repair the damage to Defendant without being a ?harsh measure given the extent of Plaintiff?s reliance of the documents??

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of “crashed” laptop computer

Abdulahi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1393 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was fired for failure to lock a gate?which he disputed?during the pendency of separate EEOC investigations into plaintiff?s charges of discrimination and where the at-issue manager claimed to have viewed footage confirming the gate was unlocked but failed to preserve it, the court determined that Defendant was under a duty to preserve (?due to an ongoing EEOC investigation during the applicable time period, Wal-Mart?s own investigation into the alleged employee misconduct including a review of the video footage, and litigation being reasonably foreseeable?), that plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss because neither the at-issue manager?s testimony or emails were equivalents for the video, and that plaintiff showed ?more than mere negligence? in the destruction, the court ordered an adverse inference creating a presumption that ?Wal-Mart?s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual and that retaliation was the but-for cause of Plaintiff?s termination? and awarded attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express Inc., No. CV 13-02092 BRO (PLAx), 2014 WL 12560879 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and possible evidence preclusion (TBD after recovery efforts were exhausted), where Defendant failed to preserve its employees? text messages, including highly relevant text messages, by failing to implement a litigation hold and where despite Defendant?s attempts to recover the deleted information, the court deemed it ?very unlikely? that such efforts would result in full production; court also reasoned that even if all missing documents were produced, Plaintiffs would still be prejudiced in light of less time to review the evidence and prepare for trial

Nature of Case: Class action employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages, ESI

Domanus v. Lewicki, —F.3d—, 2014 WL 408723 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Circuit court found no abuse of discretion for District Court?s imposition of default judgment (or its prior finding of contempt) – which was a more drastic sanction than was originally imposed by the magistrate judge – where Defendants? discovery behaviors, including failing to produce documents as ordered, avoiding depositions, and failing to preserve potentially relevant ESI (and providing conflicting stores about what happened to the hard drive, including that it had been taken apart and given to a defendant?s children to play with) justified the harsh sanction imposed

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive (emails), bank records

Oros & Busch Application Techs., Inc. v. Terra Renewal Servs., Inc., No. 4:12CV00959 ERW, 2014 WL 897405 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions with leave to re-file later, where record did not show conduct by plaintiff to destroy or conceal evidence in an effort to suppress the truth, and record did not support the requisite finding of prejudice to defendant; court further denied plaintiff’s motion to strike counterclaims that were based on plaintiff?s alleged destruction of ESI, since it could not be said that the counterclaims could not succeed under any circumstances

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on former employee’s laptop and external hard drive

Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., No. 2:09-1546, 2014 WL 555164 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on union’s failure to preserve evidence, noting that union appeared to have been diligent in trying to gather up relevant documents once litigation commenced, there was no way to determine when the missing records were destroyed, and union was autonomous organization and none of the existing plaintiffs shouldered any blame for the union’s negligence

Nature of Case: Class action regarding defendant’s obligation to restore certain retiree healthcare benefits

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail and other ESI

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-CV-2116 (SRN/SER), 2014 WL 1309095 (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court judge overruled plaintiff’s objection to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which found spoliation by defendant in not preserving consul’s mobile phone given that defense counsel knew or should have known that the phone was relevant to the pending litigation, but declined to impose sanctions because there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to plaintiff and plaintiff had failed to pursue opportunities to obtain the information through other methods

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; text messages and other ESI on mobile phone

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Abcon Assocs., Inc. v. Haas & Najarian, No. CV 12-928(LDW)(AKT), 2014 WL 4981440 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that plaintiff ever instituted litigation hold, and documents were either discarded during plaintiff?s office move or lost due to server failure and/or corruption, court found that a fair reading of the record overall indicated that plaintiff?s failure to preserve was at most negligent and not in bad faith, and that no sanctions were warranted given that the alleged relevance of the missing documents appeared purely speculative and conclusory

Nature of Case: Breach of legal services agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents concerning plaintiff’s liabilities and financial condition

Schreane v. Beemon, 575 Fed. Appx. 486 (5th Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court did not err in rejecting plaintiff?s request for spoliation inference based on erasure of surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of bad faith, as plaintiff offered no evidence that anyone who knew of his objections to the subject correctional officers? conduct was involved in the decision to record over the tape; court further noted that government produced what remained of requested tape (a few minutes of plaintiff?s assault), government provided affidavit of electronics technician who described prison?s general policy of automatically recording over surveillance video not marked for investigation within 15-30 days of recording, and there was no indication that any prison official even viewed the footage because it was not live-monitored 24 hours a day

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought Bivens action against correctional officer, alleging Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance tape

Tag:Data Preservation