Tag:Data Preservation

1
Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)
2
Statera v. Henrickson, 2009 WL 2169235 (D. Colo. July 17, 2009)
3
Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)
4
State v. Ross, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)
5
Triton Constr. Co., Inc. v. E. Shore Elec. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1387115 (Del. Ch. May, 18, 2009)
6
Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)
7
Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)
8
Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)
9
SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
10
Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to issue a litigation hold, court ordered plaintiff to issue a litigation hold as to those personnel likely to possess discoverable evidence and to file a sworn declaration describing whether any files had been lost, the methods use to determine the existence of such a loss, the extend of the loss, and the nature of the litigation hold placed in response to the present order; court found plaintiff?s production of documents ?problematic? where it failed to organize the production according to Rule 34 and ordered plaintiff to ?amend? its production to comply; acknowledging that ?the identities of those in control of certain documents is information that may be as relevant as the documents? [substance]?, court ordered search and production of President?s documents despite claims that those documents were produced from other custodians

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Statera v. Henrickson, 2009 WL 2169235 (D. Colo. July 17, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from ?deleting or destroying, erasing or otherwise making unavailable for further proceedings? any of plaintiff?s relevant business information obtained by defendants while employed by plaintiff and enjoining the deletion or alteration of email messages and other content in relevant email accounts, among other things

Nature of Case: Claims arising from former employees’ formation of competing business and suspected use of plaintiff’s confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Key Insight: Where videotape of relevant incident was stored on computer hard drive until the drive became full and then automatically recorded over and where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or that defendants received any request for preservation prior to the automatic function resulting in loss, court found sanctions were not warranted and denied plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of relevant incident

State v. Ross, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where transcript of online chat was erased from law enforcement hard drive following ?computer problems? but where there was no evidence of bad faith, appellate court affirmed denial of defendant?s motion for production of the hard drive and reasoned that State could authenticate the printed transcripts by offering testimony from personal knowledge that the document was what it was claimed to be pursuant to ER 901(B)(1) or through the presentation of ?evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result? pursuant to ER 901(B)(9)

Nature of Case: Attemtped unlawful sexual conduct with a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, online chat transcripts

Triton Constr. Co., Inc. v. E. Shore Elec. Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 1387115 (Del. Ch. May, 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Finding that defendant should have expected litigation upon his resignation to accept employment with a competitor, court found that defendant ?intentionally, or at a minimum recklessly destroyed or failed to preserve evidence? by installing wiping software to target specific files for overwriting, by deleting thousands of files and folders as well as emails, and by failing to produce his home computer or portable thumb drive without adequate explanation; court allowed adverse inference that missing information would have supported plaintiff?s position ?on any issue to which that information was relevant?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty by working simultaneously for direct competitor

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Powell v. Sharpsburg, 2008 WL 5422577 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant willfully destroyed relevant work orders pursuant to its document retention policy but where defendant should have been aware of the relevance of the documents and the resulting duty to preserve, court ordered adverse inference in favor of plaintiff and prohibited defendants from introducing secondary evidence of contents of spoliated documents

Nature of Case: Title VII action for discriminatory discipline based on race

 

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Sanction of dismissal not warranted where data stored on dive computers was lost when it could no longer be downloaded after one year, since plaintiff did not engage in deliberate destruction, she did not know whether data was helpful or hurtful to her case because she had not seen it, and she had not known that data would automatically become unavailable for download after one year; defendant?s entitlement to alternative relief to be decided at trial; court further granted plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant?s counterclaims for ?fraud on the court? and ?spoliation of evidence?

Nature of Case: Negligence, product liability, wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Dive information stored on VR3 dive computers

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio, 587 F. Supp. 2d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Key Insight: Where, despite repeated court orders directing production, plaintiff failed to produce an un-redacted email upon which the case turned and claimed the email inaccessible because the computer on which it was stored had been destroyed and where plaintiff failed to pay court ordered sanctions for its failure to produce, court lifted earlier stay of dismissal and ordered plaintiff to pay additional $5000 sanction plus defendant?s attorneys fees and costs

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Deciding various motions in limine, court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence relating to destruction of surveillance videotape to demonstrate that adverse inference instruction was not barred as a matter of law; court further granted plaintiff?s motion to re-open discovery for limited purpose of conducting focused three-hour deposition of particular individual who was most knowledgeable about defendant?s video surveillance system

Nature of Case: Lebanese nightclub patron brought civil rights action against municipality, police department, and certain employees and owners of nightclub

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.