Data Preservation – Page 78 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion for fees and costs related to 30(b)(6) deposition despite acknowledgment that deposition was unnecessary but for city?s delay in locating copies of 911 tapes following original?s destruction by NYPD; court indicated familiarity with NYPD?s destruction of 911 tapes and, while recognizing unique concerns such as storage space, nonetheless indicated the need to balance that concern with the value of tape recorded evidence; court urged city?s counsel to consider measures to ensure preservation of tapes once litigation is anticipated

Nature of Case: Constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: 911 call tapes

Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Chevron USA, Inc. v. M & M Petroleum Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 2431926 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court found defendant had perjured himself, including making untrue statements about the existence of relevant evidence, had willfully disobeyed the court?s order to produce ?substantial documents,? and had knowingly and intentionally either destroyed or ordered destroyed relevant electronically stored information, court ordered adverse inference and monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising from defendant’s breach of contract and defendant’s undereporting of revenue and underpayment of taxes

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Stein v. Clinical Data, Inc., 2009 WL 3857445 (Mass. Super. Ct. October 2009

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff?s affirmative claims dismissed, for plaintiff to bear all costs reasonably incurred in connection with defendant?s efforts to obtain discovery of plaintiff?s emails, and that the jury be provided an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff engaged in egregious discovery violations, including incomplete productions, installation and use of software intended to delete relevant emails from his computer, and misrepresentations to the court, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Jones v. Hawley, 255 F.R.D. 51 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs did not deny their failure to preserve relevant documents previously in their possession, did not deny their failure to search for documents demanded, save one plaintiff who limited search to what he described as ?reasonably accessible? information, did not deny their failure to supplement their responses to interrogatories as promised, and did not deny providing contradictory answers regarding documents in their possession, court rejected arguments that sanctions were unnecessary because of a lack of resulting prejudice and arguments that the documents were ?barely relevant? and ordered an adverse inference instruction in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Violation of Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where audio tape of council meeting was lost despite duty to preserve and where defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs? allegation that the tape was erased or replaced beyond an unsupported assertion of inadvertence, court precluded defendants from relying on occurrences at the meeting and ordered an adverse inferences to the jury; where evidence indicated computers subject to preservation were defragged repeatedly, and perhaps erased intentionally, and where defendants failed to preserve 6 hard drives despite agreeing do so, court ordered jury to be informed of failure to preserve, that defendants were precluded from arguing that the absence of evidence supported their contentions, and that the jury would be given permission to draw an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape, hard drives

Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2009 WL 2413631 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff made a preliminary showing of spoliation, including testimonial evidence from defendant?s 30(b)(6) deponent that no one talked to her about creating a litigation hold policy and deposition testimony from defendant?s witness that he didn?t save anything, court ordered the production of defendants litigation hold letters (with information unrelated to the litigation hold redacted); court reasoned that ?if defendants deleted emails that should have been preserved, this was a relevant factor for the court to consider when it decided whether it was prohibitively burdensome or expensive for the Defendants to retrieve its archived emails.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold letter

Paylan v. St. Mary?s Hosp. Corp., 983 A.2d 56 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where trial court precluded plaintiff from presenting evidence of a court order requiring defendant to preserve the relevant hard drive but expressly allowed the presentation of evidence concerning the destruction of the hard drive and deferred ruling on the whether to give an adverse inference instruction, and where plaintiff failed to present evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of the hard drive, a necessary element when seeking an adverse inference, court of appeals ruled trial court?s preclusion of evidence of the order was error, but that the error was harmless, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

In re Kessler, 2009 WL 2603104 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In a case arising from the fire of a boat while in the marina the district court rejected the magistrate?s recommendation in favor of spoliation sanctions for the marina?s failure to preserve surveillance video because the court found that the owner of the boat did not meet the burden of establishing the marina?s culpable destruction of relevant tape in violation of a duty to preserve where the footage ?self destructed approximately twenty-seven hours after it was recorded? when it was automatically recorded over in the regular course of the system?s activities; marina was ordered to bear the cost of conducting forensic examination of its hard drive to determine if fire footage could be retrieved

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from a vessel destroyed by fire while in the marina

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Tag:Data Preservation