Data Preservation – Page 46 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, —F.3d—, 2013 WL 149817 (8th Cir. Jan 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Circuit court pronounced prospective rule that a district court must issue explicit findings of bad faith and prejudice prior to delivering an adverse inference instruction but found district court?s failure to do so in the present case was harmless error and that the Defendant was not entitled to a new trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5597547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Plaintiff sought production of audio recordings which Defendants initially indicated were available. Upon being ordered to produce certain information regarding those recordings, Defendants indicated they were unable to locate them. Following Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the recordings were discovered in a closet, but Defendants argued it would be unduly burdensome to restore and listen to the recordings and that production should not be required. Upon Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, the court found that Defendants had willfully violated the court?s orders and prejudiced the Plaintiff. Thus, the court ordered Defendants to produce the recordings at their expense and to bear the costs of additional depositions to be taken by the Plaintiff. The court also ordered Defendants and counsel to bear Plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys fees in equal proportion.

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings of phone calls

United States ex rel King v. DSE Inc., No. 8:08-CV-2416-T-23EAJ, 2013 WL 610531 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Relator withheld production of video diaries admittedly containing information damaging to his case and subsequently claimed the video was lost as the result of a burglary, court found overwhelming evidence of bad faith and that defendants had been prejudiced and thus dismissed Relator?s claims

Nature of Case: Violations of False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Video diaries recorded by Relator

Research Found. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Nektar Therapeutics, No. 1:09-cv-1292 (GLS/CFH0, 2013 WL 2145652 (N.D.N.Y. May 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for an adverse inference and monetary sanctions related to its allegations of spoliation where the court ?did not agree? that plaintiff was ?grossly negligent? noting that plaintiff ?had in place ? a comprehensive standard document preservation policy, issued both verbal and written litigation hold notices, preserved backup tapes of emails from before commencement, and confirmed that no custodian had deleted any documents related to this matter? and where, the court determined that ?[w]hile there may have been some shortcomings in [plaintiff?s] document retention protocol, it was, at most, negligent? and that the ?discretionary presumption articulated in Residential Funding Corp [306 F.3d 99] d[id] not apply in any event?; court further declared that the spoliation motion failed ?on the ?inability [of Nektar] to adduce evidence suggesting the existence, let alone destruction , of relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stream Cos., Inc. v. Windward Adver., No. 12-cv-4549, 2013 WL 3761281 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge addressed accusations of spoliation and violation of court orders and found that monetary sanctions were appropriate for defendants? spoliation of emails which were deleted (as evidenced by forensic investigation) after the duty of preservation arose but declined to find spoliation had occurred as to defendants? laptops or external storage devices where Plaintiff presented little more than evidence of Defendants? lack of credibility; magistrate judge imposed sanctions for violation of court?s orders where Defendants made unilateral decisions not to produce certain electronic devices but gave numerous assurances that everything had been produced; magistrate judge found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defendants? contempt of the court?s discovery orders and preliminary injunction order and certified certain underlying facts for consideration by the District Court

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Copyright Act, PA Wiretap Act, state trade secret law, duty of loyalty

Electronic Data Involved: Email, storage devices (iPad, iPhone, thumb drives), personal computers

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man, Inc., N. 12-2159-JTM, 2013 WL 1001851 (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court was satisfied that defendants were aware of their legal duty to preserve evidence and noted that defendants had stated they had a diligent electronic record-keeping practice to track the company’s sales, purchases and inventory, and that the company would consent to an on-site physical inspection of its inventory; court was not persuaded that preservation order was appropriate or that it would serve any useful purpose in light of the parties’ existing legal obligations to preserve relevant evidence

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, unlawful business practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sprint phones, ESI

Out of the Box Developers LLC v. Logicbit Corp., No. 10 CVS 8327, 2013 WL 3090303 (N.C. Sup. Ct. June 5, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought production of three versions of at-issue software but encountered repeated delays on the part of Defendants and where one Defendant eventually discovered that he was in fact in possession of (i.e., had preserved) the older version of the software that Plaintiffs requested but had failed to discover the information because he failed to make inquiry of ?others under his control,? including his law firm?s IT personnel, the court elected to impose ?the lesser sanction of taxing costs? and ordered that Defendants reimburse Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses associated with its various motions to compel; Defendants were ordered to install a current copy of the software on a laptop provided by the Plaintiff, to provide Plaintiff with direct access to the customized version currently in use by the Defendant/law firm, and to produce to Plaintiff a copy of the recently discovered database backup containing the software as originally installed

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants “stole a series of [Plaintiff’s] software customizations” and incorporated them into their software

Electronic Data Involved: Versions of case management software (original, customized, and current)

Tag:Data Preservation