Data Preservation – Page 67 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where as the result of a finding of willful spoliation the district court ordered an adverse inference that established Oracle?s CEO?s knowledge of any material facts that Plaintiffs were able to establish, but where plaintiffs were nonetheless defeated at summary judgment and thereafter appealed the order arguing that the inference should have been sufficient to defeat a challenge to the insufficiency of their prima facie case, the appellate court affirmed the holding of the district court noting that, ?in light of the enormous record developed in this case, the only conceivable benefit of Defendant?s spoliation was the possibility of disclaiming Ellison?s knowledge of any damaging facts underlying the purported fraud? and that the district court?s sanction was ?carefully fashioned to deny Defendants that benefit?

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: emaisl, ESI

Voom HD Holdings LLC v. Echostar Satellite LLC, No. 600292/08 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference for grossly negligent failure to preserve where defendant?s duty to preserve was triggered by its awareness that its decision to terminate an agreement with plaintiff would trigger litigation but where defendant failed to impose a litigation hold until after plaintiff?s complaint was filed and failed to discontinue its automatic deletion of emails which resulted in the loss of relevant emails; court?s analysis included discussion of prior sanctions against defendant for failure to preserve in Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506 (D. Md. 2005)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, 913 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court upheld grant of adverse inference for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a hard drive ordered to be produced for inspection and noted that because the destruction was intentional or grossly negligent, the court?s inference as to the erased emails? relevance was proper

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp., 2010 WL 1286366 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found destruction or loss of documents resulting from failure to issue a litigation hold grossly negligent but declined to recommend dismissal or an adverse inference where the record did not reveal actual or likely prejudice and held open defendant?s option to renew their request following re-depositions of the relevant custodian, the cost of which plaintiff was to bear; for the late production of responsive documents, court recommended additional depositions and for plaintiff to bear the cost and for plaintiff to bear defendants? costs associated with the instant motions; magistrate judge?s recommendations were affirmed by the district court in their entirety 2010 WL 4027780 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged defects in cellular towers designed and manufactured by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

United States v. Laurent, 2010 WL 2404419 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc., 2010 WL 3324964 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants? failed to preserve relevant evidence but later undertook a ?diligent and expensive attempt to retrieve what was lost? resulting in the discovery of hundreds of thousands of documents, the court declined to impose default judgment absent clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and found that the imposition of attorneys? fees would result in ?disproportional punishment? in light of defendants? search expenditures; court declined to impose adverse inference or issue preclusion where the quantity and nature of evidence still missing was in dispute such that prejudice could not be established and ordered an evidentiary hearing; court found letter sent to parent company of defendant (plaintiff?s employer) was sufficient to trigger preservation obligation where the letter made specific mention of its applicability to all subsidiaries, was unambiguous about the intent to sue, and indicated its applicability to SFX in its reference line

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Kwon v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2010 WL 571941 (D. Haw. Feb. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion in limine and imposed an adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve surveillance video tape potentially containing footage of the underlying accident upon finding that defendant was aware of its duty to preserve but took no steps to prevent the footage from being automatically recorded over; court denied request for default judgment where such a drastic step was not warranted absent evidence of the ?requisite willfulness, fault, or bad faith?; court declined to impose monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

DeMeo v. Kean, 754 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support plaintiff?s claim of willful or intentional spoliation and sufficient direct evidence that defendants? handling of the relevant surveillance footage was ?at least negligent,? the court declined to order terminating sanctions where plaintiff was ?not at a complete loss? in light of alternative evidence to support his claims, but ordered an adverse inference, the language of which will be addressed at trial

Nature of Case: Violations of state constitutional rights and state tort claims arising from an altercation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Dana Ltd. v. American Axle & Mfg. Holdings, Inc., 2010 WL 5394885 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted defendant?s motion to clarify the agreed preliminary injunction order where, following entry of the agreement, defendant determined that the broad language addressing preservation created a cost prohibitive obligation that was broader than necessary to protect the plaintiff and agreed to enter an order reflecting defendant?s proposed revision which was more specific regarding what must be preserved

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fatpipe Networks India Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., 2010 WL 129790 (D. Utah Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant had not produced all versions of its relevant source code despite a court order and had been untruthful as to its maintenance of certain records, court granted plaintiff?s motion to vacate its scheduling order and ordered defendant to take specific action, including 1) taking specific measures to ensure preservation of relevant evidence, 2) taking ?all reasonable measures to obtain from third parties?including past or present customers? evidence of its software development and version history, 3) identifying all computers on which anyone had engaged in software development since 2006 and all devices which ?ha[d] at any time contained? data reflecting such activity, and 4) producing all prior or current versions of software and source code for each relevant device, among other things

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tag:Data Preservation