Data Preservation – Page 43 – Electronic Discovery Law

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-cv58, 2013 WL 458532 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: For spoliation addressed in E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), court awarded DuPont attorneys? fees in the amount of $2,428,733.90 and costs in the amount of $2,068,313.60; costs/expenses included those paid to three outside vendors, including for forensic analysis services and for providing contract attorneys to review and analyze documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of business information, conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Simms v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc., 2013 WL 49756 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case

Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

AMC Tech., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-3403 PSG, 2013 WL 3733390 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for Defendant?s deletion of the ESI belonging to a former employee where despite a general duty to preserve, the defendant ?could not have reasonably known? of the potential relevance of the at-issue ESI; where the disposal of ESI was pursuant to a routine deletion policy and other communications from the at-issue employee were produced from other custodians ?which suggests that Cisco did not act with a conscious disregard;? and where the relevance of the documents was tentative and the court was ?hard-pressed? to find that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss

Nature of Case: Claims related to software development and licensing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI belonging to former employee

EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 295 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to establish a litigation hold and resulting loss of relevant data through routine purge was inexcusable and presented exceptional circumstances that removed such conduct from the protections provided by Rule 37(c); as sanction, court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment which turned in part on skill login data, and would give permissive adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed evidence at trial

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Skill login data

Clay v. Consol Penn. Coal Co., No. 5:12CV92, 2013 WL 4854746 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants were dilatory in participating in discovery and did not begin searching for ESI until plaintiff was on the brink of filing his second motion to compel, district court affirmed magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for default judgment be denied because there was no showing of bad faith on the part of defendants and prejudice to plaintiff could be alleviated through imposition of less drastic sanctions, such as allowing plaintiff to re-depose certain witnesses at defense expense, allowing plaintiff to exceed the deposition limit, and awarding plaintiff reasonable expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of the motion

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 5655984 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Gilley v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 3:10-CV-251, 2013 WL 1701066 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to preserve digital images which she claimed she took with her cell phone and her daughter?s cell phone and which she claimed to have received from her daughter via email and later forwarded to her attorney (resulting in several electronic copies of the image(s)), the court found that plaintiff had the obligation to preserve the evidence, that she knew or should have known that the images were relevant, that the images and metadata were in fact relevant, and that sanctions were appropriate and thus imposed a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Digital images

Lane v. Vasquez, 961 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiff?s motion for default judgment for alleged spoliation of ?documents pertaining to his non-selections? (in hiring) where Plaintiff failed to present ?clear and convincing evidence? that the ?abusive behavior? occurred and failed to show why a lesser sanction would not sufficiently punish or deter Defendant?s behavior; court also addressed Plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference as to several specific instances of spoliation and provided individual analysis for each piece of evidence and ultimately denied the adverse inference as to all evidence for reasons including the failure to establish that any documents were in fact destroyed and the court?s determination that an adverse inference would not rebut Defendant?s ?legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons? for the alleged adverse employment actions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ?Documents related to the hiring process for positions he was denied?

Anderson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-111-SJM, 2013 WL 4455602 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation

Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives

Tag:Data Preservation