Data Preservation – Page 49 – Electronic Discovery Law

Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 1414070 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had ?practical ability? to obtain documents from third-party consultant, and thus ?control? of the documents for purposes of discovery, but declined to impose sanctions, despite finding that plaintiff had failed to issue a litigation hold letter and to ensure that its consultant?s records were being preserved, where investigation revealed that limited responsive documents were recovered from the consultant?s backup tapes and that only one was never produced and thus, plaintiff and its consultant had rebutted the suggestion that defendant was prejudiced; affirmed by District Court 2012 WL 1849101

Nature of Case: claims arising from construction contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Borwick v. T-Mobil West Corp., No. 11-cv-01683-LTB-MEH, 2012 WL 3984745 (D. Colo. Sept. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant converted relevant audio files to .wav format and destroyed the originals pursuant to its document retention policy, the court declined to enter spoliation sanctions because the record did not establish bad faith reasoning (1) that defendant had provided an adequate explanation for plaintiff?s concern about gaps in the recordings, (2) that plaintiff should have requested the files in native format (which she did not) and that had she done so, defendant would have been on notice to preserve relevant files in their original format, and (3) the files were discarded pursuant to an established document retention policy; regarding bad faith, court stated, ?Only the bad faith loss or destruction of evidence will support either a judgment in favor of Plaintiff or the kind of adverse inference that Plaintiff seeks, i.e., that production of the original i360 recordings would have been unfavorable to Defendant?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio files converted from original format

State v. Fox, No. 11CA3302, 2012 WL 4946436 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: ?[B]ecause appellant failed to show that the video contained materially exculpatory evidence or that the state acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the evidence, appellant did not demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. Thus, the trial court did not err by overruling his motion to dismiss.?

Nature of Case: Criminal: assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Phillip M. Adam & Assocs. V. Dell Computer Corp., No. 2012-1238, 2013 WL 1092719 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that the district court erred in imposing an adverse inference for failure to preserve absent evidence of bad faith and thus reversed the district court?s imposition of an adverse inference sanction

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Danny Lynn Elec. V. Veolia Es Solid Waste, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 WL 786843 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

915 Broadway Assocs. LLC v. Paul, Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP, No. 403124/08, 2012 WL 593075 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For egregious spoliation, including intentional deletions by key custodians, plaintiff?s failure to investigate storage practices or to ensure preservation, several custodians? failure to suspend auto-delete functions associated with their files, failure to suspend destruction of backup tapes, and replacement of relevant servers, the court ordered dismissal of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Burgess v. Fischer, No. 3:10-cv-00024, 2012 WL 3811863 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff?s claim of spoliation related to video footage of the alleged excessive force where the tape was destroyed pursuant to the jail?s document retention policy after five days and plaintiff?s case was not filed for almost one year and where the court indicated there was no evidence that defendants knew litigation was probable; court did note in footnote, however, that five days is a short retention time and that ?a prudent jail would keep the video of a takedown incident for a longer period of time?

Nature of Case: Claims of excessive force against police officers

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Mahaffey v. Marriot Int?l, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 4833370 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of video tape and hard copy where, as to the video tape, the court determined that defendant ?could not reasonably have known? that it had an obligation to preserve the at-issue video at the time it was destroyed, and that no sanctions were therefore merited and where, as to the hard copy documents, the plaintiff was unable to establish that the at-issue documents actually existed or that, if they did, they were destroyed with the requisite culpable state of mind (where the alleged spoliation resulted from a broken sprinkler which flooded a storage room), and where even if defendant had been negligent, plaintiff could not establish that the allegedly destroyed evidence was relevant to his claims

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from alleged elevator accident

Electronic Data Involved: Video, hard copy

Townsend v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., No. 11AP-672, 2012 WL 2467047 (Ohio Ct. App. June 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to conduct forensic analysis of defendant?s email and electronic data systems where defendant?s employee admitted to sending a highly relevant email that was never produced and where defendant failed to establish that production ?would incur undue burden or expense?; court?s analysis included consideration of whether deleted emails were discoverable (yes) and the need for a protocol to protect the producing party?s privilege, confidential information

Nature of Case: Personal injury resulting from auto accident

Electronic Data Involved: Email

State Nat?l Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Camden, No. 08-5128 (NLH)(AMD), 2012 WL 960431 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Award of attorney?s fees for investigation into possibility of spoliation where defendant failed to institute a litigation hold was proper, even where no spoliation was established, because the ?non-breaching party still has suffered damages in the context of attorneys? fees and costs? as a result of the need to perform the investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Data Preservation