Data Preservation – Page 66 – Electronic Discovery Law

State v. Absher, 2010 WL 3860501 (N.C. App. Ct. Oct. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where police department failed to preserve video surveillance footage containing images of the alleged assault at issue despite a specific written request for preservation by defendants? counsel and instead altered the tape to remove significant portions and then destroyed the original, superior court did not err in dismissing the charges against defendants because of the irreparable prejudice caused by the loss of the video tape

Nature of Case: Criminal/Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2010 WL 5395716 (6th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants produced a CD containing responsive ESI, including links to relevant graphic images which plaintiff viewed, but where the links eventually ?expired? and the images could no longer be seen and where defendants thereafter refused to produce printed copies of the previously produced advertisements, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where plaintiff had a duty to preserve relevant evidence in his possession but failed to take steps to preserve the images for future use

Nature of Case: Violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Expired links to relevant images

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer

Humphrey v. Sallie Mae, Inc., 2010 WL 2522743 (D.S.C. June 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to conduct discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference where plaintiff sought to subpoena her own cell phone provider to obtain electronic data that was in danger of being purged pursuant to Verizon?s data retention policies and where the request was reasonable in light of the limited scope of the subpoena and the danger of irreparable harm to plaintiff if the data was lost

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data in possession of cellular phone service provider

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. Parker, 2010 WL 559135 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Considering both the ?good cause? standard and the ?preliminary injunction-style analysis? court determined plaintiff was not entitled to expedited discovery to conduct forensic examination of defendant?s cell phone, PDA, and personal computer where defendant assured the court the relevant data would be preserved and where plaintiff failed to show the potential for spoliation or resulting prejudice

Nature of Case: Breach of a Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreement, tortious interference with Plaintiff’s relationships with its clients and misappropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions against remaining defendant where defendant was not responsible for the destruction of the relevant servers and the district court thus ?balanced the lack of any assertion of wrongdoing by [defendant] with the harm caused to [plaintiff?s] claims? and where Ohio law provided a remedy for a party injured by another party?s spoliation of evidence, namely a claim for the tort of spoliation (which plaintiff apparently asserted against the actual spoliating party)

Nature of Case: Copyright/trade secret infringement, intentional spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers containing relevant ESI

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Kahmout v. Vons Cos., Inc., 2010 WL 3751466 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged spoliation of surveillance video where in the case of an incident the surveillance video was to be copied from the hard drive it was stored on to a CD, but where there was insufficient evidence that such a CD was ever made or existed, and where plaintiff failed to contact defendant regarding her lawsuit until 5 months had passed – a period of time far longer than the video would have been preserved on the hard drive in the usual course of business

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Prins v. Dir. of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the trial court granted spoliation sanctions despite failing to find that the loss was intentional or in bad faith (where the officer failed to preserve the relevant video footage as the result of failing to mark the right ?checkbox? in the system) and where Missouri law requires ?evidence of intentional destruction? or ?evidence that the spoliator destroyed the evidence ?under circumstances manifesting fraud, deceit, or bad faith?, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new hearing

Nature of Case: DUI

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage of defendant’s stop and arrest

Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court rejected objections to the Magistrate Judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied and, addressing plaintiff?s assertions that an evidentiary gap regarding defendant?s alleged misappropriation of information could be filled by adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve instant messages, declined to impose such an inference where defendant mistakenly believe that the messages were automatically preserved and, upon learning otherwise, made changes to preserve going forward and thus plaintiffs were unable to show a culpable state of mind and where the alleged spoliation caused little harm in light of the availability of other evidence

Nature of Case: Breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

Tag:Data Preservation