Tag:Data Preservation

1
Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
2
Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 207 P.3d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
3
Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)
4
U.S. v. Cameron, 2009 WL 4544928 (D. Me. Nov. 30, 2009)
5
Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)
6
U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)
7
Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)
8
Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)
9
U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)
10
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Grochinski v. Schlossberg, 402 B.R. 825 (N.D. Ill. 2009)

Key Insight: U.S. District Court affirmed bankruptcy court?s sanction that facts alleged against defendant would be taken as established and that defendant was prohibited from opposing trustee?s claims against him where forensic evidence indicated that defendant destroyed evidence by installing cleaning software and by installing new operating systems on relevant computers despite his ongoing duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Adversary action alleging fraudulent transfer

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 207 P.3d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court declined to find abuse of discretion in trial court?s refusal to give a spoliation instruction regarding a missing event recorder where defendant offered a satisfactory explanation for the loss of data, namely, that the data on the event recorder was downloaded to a laptop, that the data was not properly recorded and so the faulty tape was destroyed to prevent its re-use, and that the laptop containing the data was later stolen

Nature of Case: Personal injury arising from train/car collision

Electronic Data Involved: Event recorder data

Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment where court found defendant deliberately destroyed computer servers, and with it certain ESI that had been requested by the plaintiff, where such destruction demonstrated the necessary ?willfulness, bad faith and fault? to support such a sanction, where the prejudice caused by the failure to produce the ESI was ?not excused? by the fact that plaintiff already possessed some of the destroyed documents, and where less severe sanctions were previously awarded and defendant had been warned of the possibility of stricter sanctions in future

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on server

U.S. v. Cameron, 2009 WL 4544928 (D. Me. Nov. 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Where following an order to produce relevant laptops for defendant?s expert to examine the government represented its lack of custody of such laptops, save one, and that the laptop in its possession did not contain relevant evidence but did contain materials statutorily prohibited from dissemination, court amended order to explicitly relieve the Government of the obligation to produce materials not in its possession or to produce the laptop containing materials restricted from dissemination by statute; court?s opinion explicitly affirmed defendant?s right to question the Government regarding its failure to preserve and to bring any newly discovered evidence to the court?s attention

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Brown v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Key Insight: Where expert witness destroyed relevant surgical logs and resisted production of alternative evidence upon the objection that a review of all patient files would be unduly burdensome, court denied motion to compel production of the logs but ordered that as a sanction for spoliation, the expert would not be allowed to testify as to the number of fat grafting procedures he had performed, and would have to be qualified as an expert based on other information

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Surgical records

U & I Corp. v. Advanced Med. Design, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 667 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff abused discovery process by, among other things, failing to produce email attachments and belatedly advising defendant and court that certain emails were unrecoverable, court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiff and granted request for limited inspection of computer hard drives used by certain of plaintiff’s employees to be conducted by independent forensic examiner

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives of plaintiff’s employees

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

U.S. v. Latham, 2008 WL 5146526 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to preserve exculpatory evidence where defendant alleged government spoliation of potentially exculpatory hard drives but failed to show that the unavailable evidence possessed exculpatory value that was apparent prior to destruction and that he could not obtain comparable evidence by other means and where defendant failed to adequately support an inference that evidence was destroyed in bad faith

Nature of Case: Recieving and transporting child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 2949427 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs made prima facie showing of infringement, there was no other way to identify Doe defendant, and there was risk that ISP would destroy its logs prior to Rule 26(f) conference, court found that need for expedited discovery outweighed prejudice to defendant and granted plaintiffs? motion for leave to take immediate discovery

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement through use of peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networking

Electronic Data Involved: ISP logs; documents and ESI sufficient to identify defendant’s true name, current and permanent addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and Media Access Control addresses

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.