Data Preservation – Page 34 – Electronic Discovery Law

Miller v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-90, 2014 WL 5513477 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Noting that parties have no duty to create documents simply to comply with another party’s discovery request, court denied plaintiff’s motion seeking spoliation sanctions based on defendant’s alleged failure to preserve copies of plaintiff’s credit reports, as defendant provided third parties with only unformatted electronic data which the third party would then aggregate and format according to its needs — it did not create any hard copy documents in connection with the process; as such, defendant could not be sanctioned for failing to preserve documents it neither created nor possessed

Nature of Case: Fair Credit Reporting Act case

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of credit reports defendant provided to third parties during pendency of lawsuit

UMG Recording, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 8407, 2014 WL 5089743 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions for Defendants? bad faith deletion of relevant records related to uploading infringing materials to its music distribution service despite a duty to preserve and found that Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law that certain defendants illegally uploaded infringing materials; for culpable spoliation of source code, including by failing to preserve relevant data stored on a backup server when the lease on that server expired, court found that defendants were precluded from raising one of their substantive defenses to plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

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

Siggers v. Campbell, No. 07-12495, 2014 WL 4978648 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding that litigation hold was not put into place until more than four years after complaint was filed, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that defendant deleted any documents or evidence, or acted with an intent to conceal or destroy evidence, there was no evidence that defendant routinely exchanged email correspondence about plaintiff with others, and the vigorous work of plaintiff?s appointed counsel led to only one responsive email being produced; plaintiff would be allowed to question defendant at trial about her failure to timely impose a litigation hold and about other matters related to plaintiff?s assertion that she must have had relevant email communications that no longer exist

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner civil rights claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07-CV-7767 (AKH)(KNF), 2014 WL 5364100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendants? repeated failure to properly search for, locate and produce audio recordings, their inability to account for the audio recordings? disappearance, and their conflicting representations to the court and plaintiff about the existence of the recordings, as well as their deliberate and unjustified failure to search for and locate email messages and their lack of explanation for the ?human error? they claimed was responsible for the delay, warranted a finding of bad faith conduct that prejudiced plaintiff; court declined to impose extreme sanction of striking defendants? pleadings and instead imposed an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the spoliated audio recordings, monetary sanctions representing plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred in connection with motion, and the retaking of certain depositions at defendants? expense

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and various business torts

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings, email

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

Tag:Data Preservation