Data Preservation – Page 36 – Electronic Discovery Law

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

First Senior Fin. Group LLC v. ?Watchdog,? No. 12-cv-1247, 2014 WL 1327584 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied four-part test to determine that defendant acted intentionally and in bad faith to suppress or withhold relevant evidence, but because the prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from the spoliation appeared minimal and plaintiffs did not present any arguments as to how the spoliation prejudiced the ultimate merits of their case, court would only require defendant to pay the cost of the independent computer forensics expert and attorneys’ fees associated with plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions; court denied all other relief and sanctions sought by plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, violations of the Lanham Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, computer hard drive

BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, LLC, No. 2013 CA 1396, 2014 WL 4925698 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Appellate court concluded that trial court did not err in ordering that adverse inference instruction be given to jury as to contents of particular file where plaintiff had notice that file, which was within plaintiff?s control, was relevant to pending litigation, it attempted to refer to contents of file in support of motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff?s explanation for loss of the file was pretextual and not reasonable; appellate court reversed trial court?s decision to impose ultimate sanction of dismissal because record did not support conclusion that plaintiff willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with trial court?s orders, since dismissal rested on conduct that did not relate to court-ordered discovery and in most instances occurred prior to the first discovery order; appellate court vacated trial court?s award of attorneys? fees in favor of defendant and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of reasonable expenses because the basis for the award was unclear and the award appeared to include other fees and costs unrelated to the particular discovery motion for which they were awarded

Nature of Case: Suit to enforce obligations arising out of promissory notes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, spreadsheets

Design Basics, LLC v. Carhart Lumber Co., No. 8:13CV125, 2014 WL 6669844 (D. Neb. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where court had previously ruled that, absent an order of the court upon a showing of good cause or stipulation by the parties, a party from whom ESI has been requested shall not be required to search for responsive ESI: (a) from more than 10 key custodians, (b) that was created more than five years before the filing of the lawsuit, (c) from sources that are not reasonably accessible without undue burden or cost, or (d) for more than 160 hours, inclusive of time spent identifying potentially responsive ESI, collecting that ESI, searching that ESI and reviewing that ESI for responsiveness, confidentiality and privilege or work product, and plaintiff subsequently moved to compel additional computer imaging, court balanced Rule 26(b)(2)(B) considerations and, acknowledging that defendant had provided both electronic and paper copies of all blueprints, performed plaintiff?s requested search on the email copied from 11 computers, had invested many hours reviewing thousands of documents for privilege and had offered to produce the non-privileged emails to plaintiff?s counsel for his review and had provided suggested deposition dates for defendant?s president, and noting that plaintiff neither reviewed the email nor deposed anyone notwithstanding that case was more then 18 months old, concluded that requested discovery was not reasonable and proportional to the issues raised in the litigation, denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, granted defendant?s motion for protective order, and ordered parties to complete and file an appended Rule 26(f) Report

Nature of Case: Design misappropriation

Electronic Data Involved: Forensic images of every computer or data storage location used by defendant

Griffin v. New Prime Inc., No. 1:10-cv-01926-WSD, 2014 WL 212537 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based on defendants’ alleged destruction of tractor-trailer’s black box data denied where data was lost when tow-truck operator, with the Georgia State Patrol’s consent, moved the tractor-trailer forward to separate it from another vehicle shortly after the accident, and plaintiffs offered no evidence to suggest that defendants knowingly moved the tractor-trailer forward or purposely failed to preserve the “black box” data

Nature of Case: Traffic accident

Electronic Data Involved: Black box data on tractor-trailer involved in accident

Clemons v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., Inc., No. 1:11-CV-339, 1:11-cv-340, 2014 WL 3507299 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant attempted to preserve relevant video by assigning a part time maintenance/IT employee to copy the relevant portion but failed to discover that the wrong portion was copied before the tape was overwritten, the Magistrate Judge found that the failure to preserve the relevant footage was grossly negligent and recommended a mandatory adverse inference, that defendant be prohibited from offering evidence or testimony from witnesses who viewed the unavailable footage and that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney?s fees; the district court adopted the recommendations

Nature of Case: Claims of deliberate indifference to prisoner’s medical needs

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Connelly v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., No. 12-2660, 2014 WL 2003093 (E.D. La. May 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at point in time at which surveillance videotape was overridden pursuant to VA’s 30-day retention policy, VA was on notice that the surveillance tape was relevant to litigation; plaintiff also failed to show any bad faith with respect to the alleged destruction of video surveillance

Nature of Case: Federal Tort Claims Act claim for slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kinsler v. City of Philadelphia, No. 13-6412, 2014 WL 3964925 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on police department’s loss of cell phone video, as the video did not capture any interaction between plaintiff and the two police officers and it was unclear how the video could be relevant to plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff possessed a second video that did capture the events of the night in question and therefore plaintiff was not prejudiced by loss of the cell phone video, and there was no evidence that the two officers (the only remaining defendants in the case) were ever in possession or control of the cell phone video or responsible for its destruction

Nature of Case: Claims for excessive force and malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone video recorded by a witness to the events, 15-30 seconds in duration, which was uploaded onto a Philadelphia Police Department computer and subsequently lost

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Walker, No. 05-13-00724-CV, 2014 WL 6065713 (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for defendant?s inability to produce additional communications – which defendant had explained were not available because defendant had replaced its servers and had not backed-up the data – because there was no proof that defendant intentionally concealed evidence or that the spoliation irreparably deprived plaintiff of any meaningful ability to present its claims

Nature of Case: Claims arising from misappropriation of over $8 million in load proceeds designated to fund a series of residential loan transactions

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Data Preservation