Data Preservation – Page 63 – Electronic Discovery Law

Yelton v. PHI, Inc., 2011 WL 6100445 (E.D. La. Dec. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, following a helicopter crash, defendant hired an engineer to conduct relevant analysis, and where defendant failed to place that engineer under a litigation hold, court found that relevant information was deleted and that the evidence indicated a finding of ?a significant degree of culpability? and ordered an adverse inference and that defendant pay the moving party?s reasonably costs and attorneys? fees related to the spoliation motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from helicopter crash

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to engineering analysis

Aircraft Fueling Sys., Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 08-CV-414-GKF-FHM, 2011 WL 4954250 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s possession of some emails that arguably should have been produced by defendant but were not was ?somewhat probative? but fell short of establishing that other relevant emails were created by defendant and then destroyed; upheld on appeal

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant?s assertion that relevant video surveillance footage was protected as work product as a result of its preservation in anticipation of litigation and pursuant to the direction of counsel where the video was ?made as part of the normal course of surveillance videos made by NCL? and ?was not created in the work product context?

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Surowiec v. Capital Title Agency, Inc., No. CV-09-2153-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 1671925 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Highlighting that a party?s duty of preservation is owed to the court and not to a potential plaintiff, court found that defendant was grossly negligent in its failure to issue a litigation hold or take other efforts to ensure preservation of relevant evidence and ordered an adverse inference; court also found that defendant acted ?willfully in failing to timely and adequately respond to the document requests? where defendant?s search terms were not ?calculated to capture? relevant documents and where a court ordered (re)search resulted in production of thousands of documents only three days before the close of discovery and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct and for the reasonable attorney?s fees spent to challenge the misconduct, prepare for additional depositions, and bring the instant motion for sanctions; court?s opinion specifically declined to hold that a lack of written litigation hold was negligence per se

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. related to purchase of condominium

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

In re Hitachi Television Optical Block Cases, No. 08cv1746 DMS (NLS), 2011 WL 3263781 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite the intentional deletion of ESI by defendant?s employee, court declined to impose evidentiary sanctions where there was no showing of prejudice (because the vast majority of deleted ESI was recovered); court also denied request for attorneys? costs and fees pursuant to its inherent authority or under Rule 37

Nature of Case: Putative Class Action alleging a product defect

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Veolia Transp. Servs. v. Evanson, No. CV-10-01392-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5909917 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, prior to being named a party to the action, defendant failed to preserve ESI (including failing to pay a vendor for imaging her hard drive, which resulted in the vendor’s destruction of the image) despite the receipt of two subpoenas, where the court found the spoliation to be at least willful, and where the circumstances surrounding the spoliation permitted an inference that the information destroyed was highly relevant to the litigation, court found an entry of default was appropriate and set a hearing to determine the appropriate damages

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, defamation, etc. arising from anonymous emails sent to several parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

State v. Holiday, No. 1 CA-CR 10-0698, 2011 WL 3819844 (Ariz. App. Ct. Aug. 30, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion to reverse conviction based on state?s failure to preserve evidence despite defendant?s alleged express written request to do so where, because the contents of the audio and visual tapes at issue was unknown, evidence of bad faith was required and where no such evidence was presented; the court indicated: ?The record indicates that the officers were acting in good faith in accordance with their normal practices when the tapes were destroyed.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Audio and visual tapes related to arrest, etc.

Appleton Papers, Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No. 08-C-16, 2011 WL 7005721 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 19. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for destruction of original microfiche where the destruction occurred in a somewhat unique situation ( the crate of microfiche was destroyed after becoming an ?orphan sitting in a warehouse? after being shipped back to England) and where ?nothing of value was lost? because the originals had been digitally copied

Electronic Data Involved: Original microfiche

Salamey v. Berghuis, 2010 WL 3488692 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where surveillance footage stored on a hard drive was overwritten and lost, it was ?reasonable for the court of appeals to find that the police did not act in bad faith? where the investigator had no reason to believe that extensive review of the footage would be warranted and where there was no evidence that he purposefully erased the footage or allowed it to be rewritten and where the investigator testified he did not know the drive would rewrite itself while unplugged; court stated, ?even if [the investigator] and other police were grossly negligent in thinking that the hard drive would not rewrite itself when unplugged, that does not constitute bad faith?

Nature of Case: Criminal/Armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage stored on hard drive

People v. Jobe, 2010 WL 4106708 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err by refusing to dismiss based on prosecutions failure to preserve potentially exculpatory video surveillance tape where the tape was never in the possession of the State but rather remained in the possession of the market and where the exculpatory value of the video was not apparent, and thus there was no evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Attempted robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Tag:Data Preservation