Tag:Data Preservation

1
Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSK-MJW, 2011 WL 587971 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2010)
2
Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)
3
Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
4
Maggette v. BL Dev. Corp., 2010 WL 2010816 (N.D. Miss. May 17, 2010)
5
Grubb v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, 2010 WL 3075517 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010)
6
Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Technologies Corp., 2010 WL 3892228 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2010)
7
United States v. McNealy, 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2010)
8
Herbert v. Baker, 2010 WL 5330050 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2010)
9
Jones v. Comsys IT Partners, Inc., 2010 WL 3002083 (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2010)
10
Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSK-MJW, 2011 WL 587971 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: District Court declined to adopt recommendation for spoliation sanctions arising from defendant?s alleged bad faith destruction of a relevant email where the email was produced after the recommendation was made and thus ameliorated the need for finding of spoliation; in light of deficiencies revealed in defendants? search for responsive materials, court adopted recommendation that a forensic search of defendants? hard drives be undertaken, but reduced the scope of that search from all employees to those who ?received directly or indirectly, the customer information? at issue

Nature of Case: Claims arising from former employee?s alleged sharing of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Jones v. Comsys IT Partners, Inc., 2010 WL 3002083 (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2010)

Key Insight: Where in response to plaintiff?s motion for a protective order requiring the preservation of relevant emails defendants affirmed they had been preserving relevant evidence and would continue to do so, the court denied plaintiff?s motion as moot

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to communicate plaintiff?s preservation request and failure to implement a litigation hold resulted in the destruction of data, court ordered adverse inference related to the destruction of a particular category of evidence but delayed the imposition of sanctions for the destruction of email where efforts to retrieve those emails from backup systems were ongoing and ordered defendant to submit an explanation of their retrieval efforts with specific topics to be addressed

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hardcopy evidence

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.