Tag:Data Preservation

1
Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)
2
Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. v. Metro. Employment Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 5156609 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2008)
3
Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)
4
Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A., 2008 WL 3261095 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008)
5
Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)
6
E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)
7
Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)
8
Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)
9
Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)
10
Robinson v. Motivation Excellence, Inc., 2008 WL 2096957 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2008)

Laface Records, LLC v. Does, 2008 WL 4517178 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to serve limited, immediate discovery on third party internet service provider seeking identities and contact information of defendants where court acknowledged ?good cause exists for Plaintiffs? discovery because Defendants must be identified before this suit can progress?; court ordered third party provider to give five days notice to defendants and set deadline for potential motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc. v. Metro. Employment Corp. of Am., 2008 WL 5156609 (D. Mass. Dec. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Court declined to order preliminary injunction requiring defendants to image hard drives for production and to produce copies of all electronic files related to the action where plaintiff alleged that defendants destroyed ESI on plaintiff?s server but did not state who deleted it or how, and where plaintiff failed to show the information was not available elsewhere or that ample protection was not provided by the preservation obligations under the Federal Rules or the rules of the American Arbitration Association

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Eckhardt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2008 WL 1995310 (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff established through deposition testimony that discoverable documents existed which had not been produced, but court found no bad faith, court declined to give adverse inference instruction and instead allowed plaintiff to seek missing documents from backup tapes and to corroborate substance of any missing documents from witnesses where documents themselves could be recovered

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email; backup tapes

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-4, 589 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Conn. 2008)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? motion to for leave to take expedited discovery from defendants? internet service providers (two universities) for purpose of identifying Doe defendants where information sought was necessary for continued prosecution of the litigation and where narrowly tailored requests would reduce if not eliminate any prejudice to defendants; court limited discovery to defendants? directory information and MAC (media access control) addresses and provided defendants opportunity to object

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ISP directory information, MAC addresses

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Plaintiff?s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed ?paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.?, where search was performed in presence of defendant?s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff?s reliance on ?passing statement? regarding email communication at deposition ?insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Huthnance v. D.C., 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants? radio log indicated a relevant communication occurred but where defendants were unable to produce the audio tape, court ordered defendant to produce its document retention policies to show ?whether the [communications] were maintained according to standard procedure?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged illegal arrest and detention

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes of phonecalls, access to

Diabetes Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Healthpia Am., Inc., 2008 WL 336382 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2008)

Key Insight: Where court found that defendants may not have taken adequate steps to preserve emails through a backup process but followed the company’s standard procedures, and if anything, there was negligence derived from lax electronic document maintenance procedures, and that plaintiff?s counsel, at most, may have been lax in that inadequate direction and oversight was given to associate to guide her search for relevant and responsive emails, court concluded that, while all parties were remiss in fulfilling their discovery obligations, there was no evidence of ?bad faith? on the part of either party to warrant an instruction on spoliation and denied parties’ competing sanctions motions

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, laptops

Robinson v. Motivation Excellence, Inc., 2008 WL 2096957 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2008)

Key Insight: Because court ruled that plaintiff?s claims were without merit and granted defendant?s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, court concluded there was no need for expert to access laptop?s hard drive and that defendant was entitled to return of its property; court ordered plaintiff to return laptop and other property to defendant former employer, and directed defendant to ?preserve, maintain, and protect all such property and things in their present state from destruction, modification and/or alteration? until the action was finalized

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-provided laptop

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