Data Preservation – Page 73 – Electronic Discovery Law

Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants were unable to produce an electronic version of an interview summary available in hard copy and where the creator of the summary testified that after printing the summary, she could not find the electronic version on her computer and hypothesized that perhaps it had inadvertently been saved in a temporary file, the court could not find that the duty to preserve had been willfully breached or that defendant had been prejudiced by the loss, particularly where a second summary of the same interview was produced and where the person who was interviewed was available for deposition and trial, and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic version of document produced only in hard copy

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

VFI Assoc., LLC v. Lobo Mach. Corp., 2010 WL 4716215 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For defendant?s knowing refusal to produce responsive data and bad faith alteration of data in an effort to hide relevant evidence, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from offering any “defense, evidence, or argument” as to several disputed issues and indicated it willingness to ?take under advisement? additional sanctions, including monetary sanctions, a finding of contempt of court, and a possible adverse inference instruction [on Nov. 22, 2010, a second opinion was issued, identical to the first except that the footnote regarding the court’s consideration of future sanctions discussed only an adverse inference instruction and did not include mention of a finding of contempt or monetary sanctions, 2010 WL 4868110]

Nature of Case: Allegations that business manager accepted kickbacks from equipment supplier

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

Dec 01 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

In re Subpoenas, 692 F.Supp.2d 602 (W.D.Va. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where recipient of government subpoenas refused to comply on grounds of unreasonableness and burden, court approved government?s offer to reduce number of custodians from 13 to 3 (out of a workforce of approximately 72,000) and ordered recipient to produce live emails and snapshot of emails from backup tapes for each of the years between 2002 and 2008 which, the court noted, had been preserved for other litigation

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, snapshot of email from backup tapes

Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: GPS data

Pitney Bowes Gov. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, despite the destruction of relevant ESI, defendant was able to restore the relevant documents from backup tapes and produce them, but where the metadata was different such that the author of the documents was listed as one person rather than the many who had actually authored them, the court accepted the explanation that the author reflected in restored documents had received each document as an email attachment and saved those documents to her hard drive, thus changing the metadata, and further found that plaintiff made no showing that the documents were otherwise modified and denied the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Bid Protest

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of records following foreclosure on plaintiffs? company where plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure preservation of relevant data after the foreclosure, including requesting the data?s preservation and permission to copy relevant records, and where ultimately some (but not all) records were obtained via subpoena from the third-party purchaser of plaintiff?s former assets and defendant was unable to establish prejudice; court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? replacement of two crashed hard drives where the court could not conclude the plaintiffs intentionally or carelessly permitted the destruction, particularly in light of their attempts to recover some data with limited success; court denied spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? use of CCleaner absent evidence that any data was actually deleted; despite the lack of prejudice resulting from one plaintiff?s admitted deletion of allegedly personal documents in light of those documents existence in hard copy, court imposed an ?adverse inference against [plaintiff?s] credibility as a witness? at trial citing the purpose of deterring similar misconduct in future

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed business relationship

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

State v. Dewitt, 2010 WL 5550243 (Ohio App. Ct. Dec. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court overruled defendant?s assignment of error and found no violation of defendant?s due process rights resulting from the loss of a portion of the video surveillance footage of his traffic stop where defendant presented no evidence of bad faith in the destruction or loss, where defendant failed to seek a preservation order to prevent its destruction, and where defendant offered only speculation as to the exculpatory nature of the missing portions of video

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 4004164 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Based upon suspicious timing of the disappearance of ESI, the court inferred that evidence had been destroyed in bad faith by a person who knew that it would ?very well reveal information Defendants did not want revealed? and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury at trial, that plaintiff should be permitted to amend its claims to add a claim for exemplary damages based on the adverse inference, that defendants pay plaintiff?s costs and fees, and that defendants make unredacted mirror images of the hard drives of each employee of the corporate defendant at defendants? expense, to be delivered to plaintiff by a date certain; hard drives were covered by a previously entered protective order

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Tag:Data Preservation