Data Preservation – Page 74 – Electronic Discovery Law

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants repeatedly represented they had searched for and produced all relevant and available emails and also represented that some documents had been deleted ?per agency practice? before notice of litigation, but where defendants later found backup tapes containing thousands of responsive emails following plaintiff?s filing of a motion for sanctions, court rejected the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) noting that ?defendants were unable to provide electronically stored information only because they had not searched all of the available files.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to record data stored on crane?s computer following death of two construction workers, but where plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their allegations that the data was manually destroyed or that the failure to photograph the display was unreasonable and where defendants presented evidence that data could not be downloaded from the crane?s computer and plaintiff failed to request the information downloaded in the first place, court declined plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Negligence resulting in death

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on crane’s internal computer

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

U.S. v. Boyce, 2009 WL 1034775 (Apr. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered evidentiary hearing where defendant argued the case against him should be dismissed upon the police department?s inability to produce in-car videotape allegedly containing exculpatory evidence because of ?equipment problems? and where defendant asserted that factual issues needed to be resolved surrounding the department?s efforts to secure the footage and whether any procedure for preservation existed

Nature of Case: Possession with intent to distribute

Electronic Data Involved: Video tape

Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. V. Glasforms, Inc., 2009 WL 1949124 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating ?Taishan did not even come close to making reasonable efforts to carry out its preservation of materials??, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions (attorney?s fees and costs) for third-party defendant?s failure to preserve relevant evidence in violation of its litigation related duty to preserve and, in some instances, in violation of its own document retention policies

Nature of Case: Breach of contract (non-conforming goods)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Elec. Machinery Enters., Inc. v. Hunt. Constr. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 2710266 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite finding defendants ?intentionally destroyed relevant documents at a time when litigation was foreseeable? the court declined to award sanctions where it was not established the documents were ?critical for proving? plaintiff?s case, a prerequisite for such sanctions under Florida law

Nature of Case: Action for breach of contract, spoliation, breach if implied warranties

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and ESI

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Kotler v. Woods, 2009 WL 1011701 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where petitioner challenged his conviction on grounds that the state destroyed material evidence in the form of cassette tapes containing the dictation of a detective?s report and therefore violated his due process rights, court concluded petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation where petitioner failed to show that the evidence would have been favorable to him and would have altered the outcome of his trial and where the trial court gave an adverse inference instruction related to the loss of the tapes that also made a change in the outcome unlikely

Nature of Case: Petition for writ of habeus corpus

Electronic Data Involved: Cassette tapes

Tag:Data Preservation