Data Preservation – Page 67 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff suspected defendants of withholding responsive emails and sought to compel defendants to explain their preservation and production efforts and to produce all responsive ESI, court found defendants? explanation of its discovery efforts insufficient to determine whether they had satisfied their obligations where defendants failed to answer questions such as what happens to emails that are ?manually persevered? by individual custodians, the method of preservation employed by defendants (e.g. retaining existing storage archives, creating a mirror image of computer systems), and the availability of backup copies of data from an allegedly stolen laptop, and ordered defendants to provide such information, among other things, and to provide a copy of the police report ?presumably? filed for the stolen laptop

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the original computer seized from defendant was ?destroyed as the result of a miscommunication between divisions of the federal government? (computer was destroyed by the Asset Forfeiture Division working independently of the attorneys handling the criminal case), the District Court did not err in finding that the computer was not destroyed in bad faith and that such destruction did not violate the defendant?s due process rights

Nature of Case: Possession and receipt of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Computer/hard drive seized as evidence

Herbert v. Baker, 2010 WL 5330050 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court reversed the order of the Magistrate Judge compelling production of certain videotape where defendant presented evidence that the video in question was not responsive to plaintiff?s narrow request; court denied sanctions where different and relevant video was automatically overwritten before the lawsuit was initiated, where plaintiff presented no evidence of defendant?s notice of litigation, and where the lost video was not the only evidence to support plaintiff?s position

Nature of Case: Claims arising from police department’s alleged failure to prevent an intoxicated person from driving which resulted in death

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?

Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI

Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For defendant?s egregious discovery violations uncovered with the assistance of a special master, including failing to adequately search for responsive materials and lying to the court about such searching and other, related topics, court indicated likelihood that it would find as a matter of law that an agency relationship existed between the offending defendant and another entity implicated in the underlying accident claims but, recognizing that ?responsibility for punishing BL for its discovery violations lies with the court, rather than the jury? declined to order an adverse inference and instead set the matter for hearing where proper sanctions and the egregious conduct of counsel would be discussed before a final determination was made

Nature of Case: Claims arising from bus accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s ?workaday use? of the laptop at issue unknowingly resulted in the destruction of usable data and where the laptop did not belong to the plaintiff, was later returned to its third-party owner, and was then wiped clean, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions against plaintiff upon finding that there was insufficient evidence of plaintiff?s control of the laptop or that he knew the laptop would be wiped and, more importantly, where the court found that plaintiff?s destruction of data by using the laptop occurred before he knew it would have such a result

Nature of Case: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Tag:Data Preservation