Data Preservation – Page 44 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust v. UBS Real Estate Secs. Inc., No. 12 Civ. 7322(HB)(JCF), 2013 WL 5745855 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although court found that U.S. Bank was grossly negligent in failing to institute a litigation hold until eight months after its duty to preserve arose, court denied spoliation sanctions as there was no evidence of bad faith but positive evidence of good faith, and U.S. Bank presented persuasive evidence that no relevant documents were destroyed; court further ruled that litigation hold that U.S. Bank finally did impose was reasonable, as custodians were guided by both business people and counsel as to what to retain and counsel monitored compliance, gathering and reviewing relevant emails in the legal hold folders, substantive emails and attachments were printed out and retained separately and not subject to autodeletion policy

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, declaratory judgment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Moskowitz, — N.Y.S.2d —, 2013 WL 2341806 (N.Y. App. Ct. May 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Sanction precluding plaintiff from presenting evidence or testimony in opposition to defendant?s defenses and counterclaims affirmed where plaintiff failed for two years to reveal that relevant ESI had been lost after it was allegedly printed; claimed that the relevant computer was ?broken? and had been discarded when defendant sought a forensic examination; and failed to issue a litigation hold; appellate court rejected contention that the disposal did not prejudice defendant because the files had been printed where that claim was contradicted at deposition and where hard copy did not contain metadata

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive/computer

Slovin v. Target Corp., No. 12 CV 863(HB), 2013 WL 840865 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found Target was at least grossly negligent for failing to preserve all portions of relevant surveillance footage (capturing Plaintiff?s fall and the surrounding circumstances) and thus imposed an adverse inference and monetary sanctions, but declined to strike Target?s answer or preclude use of the at-issue video excerpts and photographs

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Hart v. Dillon Cos., Inc., No. 12-CV-00238-RM-DW, 2013 WL 3442555 (D. Colo. July 9, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for former employer?s spoliation of a tape containing a secretly recorded conversation ?which in part? led to Plaintiff?s termination, the court found that the tape was relevant, that Defendant had an obligation to preserve it (citing the fact that ?it knew that litigation was imminent? and a federal statute requiring the preservation of employment records concerning a terminated employee for 1 year from the date of termination), and that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the spoliation; in concluding that sanctions were warranted, court noted Defendant?s four month delay in issuing a litigation hold and indicated that ?[a]fter the duty to preserve attaches, the failure to collect taped recording from a key player is grossly negligent or willful?; what specific sanction would be imposed was not determined

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Tape of secretly recorded conversation

Mejia v. Charette, No. 12-cv-449-JD-LM, 2013 WL 6001081 (D.R.I. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, Court deferred ruling on plaintiff?s motion to compel to the extent it sought records from Wyatt Detention Facility (a third party), and directed defense counsel to request from the WDF the records plaintiff sought and to report on the status of such request at the next pretrial conference; court further denied defendants? request to limit their obligation to preserve and produce ESI so that they need not maintain that information beyond the regularly scheduled deletion, purge or overwriting date unless they have actual knowledge that responsive information actually is contained in the system or unless opposing party specifically requests it in writing, and to exclude backup tapes from litigation hold, as defendants did not provide any reason why their obligation to preserve all relevant ESI, including backup tapes or disks, should be voided, or why they should be excused from a party?s general duty to preserve relevant evidence once on notice of litigation

Nature of Case: Inmate at Wyatt Detention Facility asserted escessive force claims against four U.S. Marshals

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lifetouch Nat?l School Studios, Inc. v. Moss-Williams, No. C10-05297, 2013 WL 11235928 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a former employee (defendant) admitted prior possession of a thumb drive containing Plaintiff?s data (her prior employer) and that she had connected the thumb drive to her new employer?s computers (who is also a defendant) but where she claimed that she had not transferred any of Plaintiff?s information, that she could not recall the computer she connected to, and that she destroyed the drive before her duty to preserve arose, court reasoned that there was a ?sufficient nexus between the defendant?s computers and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets to warrant forensic imaging of the computers? (over 60 in number) but, applying the cost-shifting analysis from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003), found that in light of the ?broad scope of the request, the cost of production, the resource disparity of the parties? and defendant?s repeated assertion that the information did not exist, cost shifting was appropriate; court indicated it ?may reconsider? cost allocation if the expert determined that information from the thumb drive was transferred to defendant?s computer

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employer

Fairview Ritz Corp. v. Borough of Fairview, No. 09-875 (JLL), 2013 WL 5435060 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon motion for reconsideration based on Plaintiff?s location and production of a document previously found to have been spoliated, court found that an adverse inference and monetary sanctions predicated on the finding of spoliation were no longer appropriate but ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for the delay and Defendants? protracted efforts to procure the document?s production

Electronic Data Involved: Single document (ESI)

United States ex rel King v. Solvay S.A., No. H-06-2662, 2013 WL 820498 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted motion for protective order to limit unduly burdensome discovery and preservation demands where Defendant established the significant burden associated with preserving the multiple repositories of potentially relevant information covering 89 potential custodians, including thousands of back-up tapes, and where the court found that the allegations of the complaint did not justify the broad timeframe for discovery sought

Nature of Case: Qui Tam action alleging violations of anti-kickback statute and retaliation against Relators

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Reinsdorf v. Academy Ltd., No. 3:13-0269, 2013 WL 3475183 (M.D. Tenn. July 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought a preservation order based primarily on Defendant?s refusal to share the details of its preservation efforts and based on speculation that Defendant had not preserved certain evidence (based on its use of a blank, rather than ?actual? purchase order as an exhibit to a motion), the court found that plaintiff offered only speculation and denied the motion; court also commented, based on the detailed nature of Plaintiff?s proposed order, that ?Plaintiff essentially wants the Court to grant a discovery request that has not been made?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rodgers v. Rose Party Functions Corp., No. 10-CV-4780 (MKB), 2013 WL 6002375 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendants? duty to preserve video recording of plaintiff?s accident arose well within the two-week period before the video was erased per defendant’s document retention policies, as defendant should have anticipated litigation when defendant?s security personnel arranged for plaintiff to be taken by ambulance to a hospital for treatment of injuries sustained when she slipped, and if not then, the duty ?certainly arose? when plaintiff called defendant?s office manager and it became clear that plaintiff was seeking compensation for her injuries from defendant?s insurer; finding that video recording would have been relevant, court determined that an adverse inference instruction advising the jurors that they may infer that the video recording would have corroborated plaintiff?s allegations and rebutted defendants? assertions would suffice to restore plaintiff to the position she would have been had the recording been preserved

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage capturing plaintiff’s fall in stairwell

Tag:Data Preservation