Tag:Data Preservation

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

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

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

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

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