Data Preservation – Page 35 – Electronic Discovery Law

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., No. 12-cv-11500, 2015 WL 1029540 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found an individual defendant had control over deleted emails in an account located on a Comcast server and that the deletion of the emails was not ?merely coincidental to the winding-down of the business operations? of Defendant but rather was intentional, ?to prevent the discovery of the evidence therein?; reasoning that Plaintiff was not prevent from proving its most crucial allegations, the court declined to impose ?case-terminating? sanctions, but did order monetary sanctions against the individual defendant who controlled the emails and that Defendants? would bear the cost of a forensic search of their computers; notably, the inspection would apply to all defendants? computers, despite the court?s finding that one individual defendant had no control over the deleted emails and could not be held responsible for the deletion where the court explained (in footnote) that the non-spoliating defendant?s email account (used by his clinic) was registered to the spoliating defendant and where the non-spoliating defendant testified that he had not conducted a proper search of his computers

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on third party (Cloud) server

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317-EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 580290 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Litigation was reasonably foreseeable so as to trigger a duty to preserve evidence when plaintiff first acquired patents with an eye toward litigation, although company was analyzing defendant’s technology and openly discussing litigation months earlier; however, because plaintiff waited 11 days after filing suit to implement a legal hold and there was evidence that potentially relevant emails were deleted, court imposed monetary sanctions instead of the more severe sanctions requested given absence of substantial prejudice to defendant and fact that plaintiff’s conscious disregard of its duty to preserve was motivated by cost-saving

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails

Cheng v. Lake Forest Assocs., No. CBD-13-1365, 2014 WL 2964082 (D. Md. June 30, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court reasoned that ?[c]aselaw demonstrates that a contractual relationship between two parties, which privies one party to access documents or information physically possessed by the other, can be sufficient to establish the requisite control necessary to compel production of a discovery-related document[]? and found that defendant had such control over video surveillance footage in the possession of a third party and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Personal injury (Slip & fall)

Electronic Data Involved: video surveillance

Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC v. Governance Risk Mgmt. Compliance, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 2493(KBF), 2014 WL 3844796 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed terminating sanctions for willful and bad faith spoliation on the part of the defendant (who also happened to be a lawyer), including manual deletion of relevant emails, closing an email account maintained by a third party service provider for the purpose of ensuring the deletions and undertaking significant efforts to cover his tracks (including creating a false paper trail attempting to shift the blame to the service provider), and making misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, emails maintained by third party service provider

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Riley v. Marriott Int?l, Inc., No. 12-CV-6242P, 2014 WL 4794657 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where hotel’s security system recorded elevator area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall, but hotel produced only seven minutes of footage, which began about one minute before the accident and ended before plaintiff was removed from the ground and placed into a wheelchair, and hotel offered no sworn facts concerning the circumstances under which the footage was destroyed, court found hotel was grossly negligent at minimum and concluded that permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate and sufficient to deter hotel from similar future conduct and restore plaintiff’s position in the litigation

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Security camera footage of area before, during and after plaintiff’s fall

Ferriggi v. Best Yet Market of Astoria, Inc., No. 8564/2013, 2014 WL 5334000 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve or to make diligent efforts to retrieve surveillance video, but that loss of video did not fatally deprive plaintiff of means to prosecute his action given that witness who viewed the videotape and grocery store worker who unpacked boxes near accident location were available to testify, and accident report and medical response reports provided plaintiff with ability to prove proximate cause of accident; trial court would fashion appropriate negative inference charge against defendant based upon its failure to preserve the videotape and defendant would be precluded from offering testimony at trial to contradict plaintiff’s claim of adequate notice or that defendant created the condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall

Nature of Case: Slip and fall accident at supermarket

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

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

Tag:Data Preservation