Data Preservation – Page 62 – Electronic Discovery Law

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 274 F.R.D. 442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendants? discovery abuses, including spoliation or withholding of audio tapes of wiretapped conversations despite a court order to produce them; destruction of relevant hard drives and refusal to authorize release of copies of those drives from a third-party; and failure to produce other relevant evidence, court found that plaintiff had been prejudiced and ordered default sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims arising from fraudulent scheme to recover insurance reimbursements

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, hard drives

Pac. Century Int. Ltd. v. Does 1-101, No. C-11-02533-(DMR), 2011 WL 2690142 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s showing of good cause, court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue a subpoena to the relevant ISP seeking identifying information regarding one unknown defendant (Doe 1) but denied the motion as to the remaining 100 Does because of improper joinder

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information for ISP subscriber

S.E.C. v. Brewer, No. 10 C 6932, 2011 WL 3584800 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court held defendants in contempt for failing to preserve documents in compliance with a court order; reasoning that because documents had been destroyed, no monetary sanction would coerce their production, the court ordered that defendants pay the reasonable costs associated with the government having to bring and prosecute the motion

Nature of Case: SEC litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melendres v. Arpaio, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 6740709 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and imposed permissive adverse inferences as to two categories of information which the court found had been intentionally shredded and/or deleted despite a duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Civil rights class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Viramontes v. U.S. Bancorp, 2011 WL 291077 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff?s assertion that her January 22, 2009 letter to human resources put defendants on notice of its duty to preserve where the letter complained about her manager but did not threaten litigation and instead suggested ?a non-litigious resolution,? where plaintiff testified that she had no intention of suing at the time she sent the letter, where plaintiff waited over ten months after sending the letter to bring the instant litigation, and where the manager?s testimony that he thought the letter could give rise to legal ramifications was not sufficient to trigger the corporation?s duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate, retaliation in violation of ADA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Cacace v. Meyer Mktg. (Macau Commercial Offshore) Co., No. 06 Civ. 2938(KMK)(GAY), 2011 WL 1833338 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found duty to preserve arose upon defendant?s consultation with counsel regarding possible infringement on plaintiff?s patent but abated upon the parties? successful negotiation of licensing agreement; court found that defendant had no control and thus no obligation to preserve certain documents from an employee of a Hong-Kong based affiliate; regarding an email folder accidentally deleted following inadvertent ?exposure? to automated purge function, court declined to find the loss was a result of negligence and found that plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of information lost and declined to impose sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-30, No. 2:11cv345, 2011 WL 2634166 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for expedited discovery to issue subpoenas to relevant ISPs seeking information sufficient to identify Doe defendants

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Identifying information from ISP

Cannata v. Wyndham Wordwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-LRL, 2011 WL 3495987 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for a protective order precluding plaintiffs? inquiry (in deposition) into defendants? preservation efforts where, although a litigation hold letter is generally privileged, ?the basic details surrounding the litigation hold are not? and where the court found that the answers to certain of plaintiffs? questions, including inquiries into the ?overwrite function issue? (apparently related to a failure to stop automatic deletion), would ?allow the parties to craft a narrow, manageable ESI plan?

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to legal hold efforts

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d.—, 2011 WL 6879746 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where the general manager of the defendant Red Roof Inn claimed to have attempted to preserve video surveillance footage by asking for it to be copied but alleged that she later discovered that the footage was not copied and that the original footage had been automatically recorded over by that time, the court found, ?based on overwhelming evidence of Red Roof?s cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations,? that defendant?s spoliation was grossly negligent and ordered an adverse inference and that defendant pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with the preparation for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Unlawful detention and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

ChampionsWorld LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed?n, 276 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, the court found that defendant?s CEO and outside counsel ?should have done more to ensure that relevant evidence was preserved? and that defendant had been prejudiced where certain documents had been lost due to plaintiff?s reliance on a verbal ?100 percent document retention policy? (i.e. the company deleted nothing) and because of plaintiff?s failure to inform its accountants of the need to preserve, but declined to impose drastic sanctions and ordered that the jury be informed of plaintiff?s failure to preserve certain relevant information

Nature of Case: Allegations of anticompetitive acts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Data Preservation