Data Preservation – Page 38 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

Pettit v. Smith, No. CV-11-02139-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 4425779 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court ruled that under the special circumstances of the case and notwithstanding that it was not a party to the litigation, Arizona Department of Corrections had duty to preserve the missing evidence, its failure to do so was at least grossly negligent, evidence was plainly relevant and plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by its loss; court declined to impose case-terminating sanctions against individual defendants but would allow parties to present evidence and argument about the lost evidence and would instruct jury that ADC had a duty to preserve evidence, ADC did not preserve the evidence, and jurors may infer that lost evidence would have been favorable to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Inmate alleged correctional officers used excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of event, photograph of plaintiff’s hand, and other documentary evidence

Lovett v. Cole, No. 1:11-cv-277, 2014 WL 5426168 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based on correctional facility?s failure to preserve video surveillance footage of ?out-of-place? incident that preceded use of force incident, or digital versions of photographs taken of plaintiff?s injuries and cell after use of force incident, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a duty to preserve digital versions of photographs where hard copy photographs were preserved in accordance with the facility?s policy and procedure, and there was no evidence that defendants knew about the ?out-of-place? incident or recognized it as relevant to the use of force incident (the video footage of which was preserved); court further found that plaintiff failed to show that defendants deliberately lost or destroyed the evidence with a culpable state of mind

Nature of Case: Inmate sued correctional officers for use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage and digital information regarding plaintiff’s injuries and cell

McCann v. Kennedy Univ. Hosp., Inc., Civil No. 12-1535 (JBS/JS), 2014 WL 282693 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Applying Third Circuit’s four-factor test for evaluating spoliation claims, court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant acted in bad faith by allowing the tapes to be automatically taped over as a matter of routine, since there was no evidence that defendant’s employees knew or anticipated that plaintiff’s claims would require the retention and production of emergency room lobby videotape footage from the night plaintiff was treated

Nature of Case: Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Security videotapes of emergency room lobby

Quantlab Techs. Ltd. (BGI) v. Godlevsky, No. 4:09-cv-4039, 2014 WL 651944 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After two-day evidentiary hearing, court analyzed conduct of various individuals and inferred bad faith as to each based on particular facts and concluded generally that lost evidence was moderately relevant and loss was moderately prejudicial; without stronger showing of bad faith or more definitive demonstration of relevance and prejudice, court declined to impose litigation-ending sanctions but would give spoliation instruction to be crafted at the same time as jury instructions

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Developer work stations, hard drives, flash drives, source code

Tag:Data Preservation