Data Preservation – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may provide guidance in criminal cases in determining whether format of production by government was appropriate, and if ESI is demanded in criminal case, but request does not specify a form of production, responding party must produce ESI in form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in reasonably usable form or forms

Nature of Case: Criminal case against State Department employee for receiving, quid pro quo, gifts and other benefits for expediting visa requests

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and electronic files

Ogin v. Ahmed, 563 F.Supp.2d 539 (M.D. Pa. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where driver?s logs were relevant to plaintiff?s claims and defendants had notice of litigation and request to preserve them, but unilaterally determined that logs more than eight days prior to accident were irrelevant and destroyed them in the ?ordinary course of business,? court found that defendants actually suppressed and withheld driver’s logs and that adverse inference instruction was least severe and most appropriate sanction warranted under circumstances; court criticized defendants for not identifying date of destruction, individual responsible for such destruction, or time frame for such destruction pursuant to their retention policy and noted that defendants had not attached their retention policy as an exhibit to any filing or described any details of their retention policy

Nature of Case: Personal injury claims stemming from vehicle accident involving commercial tractor trailer and Jeep Wrangler

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized driver’s logs

Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Remanding case for new trial on other grounds, appellate court noted that trial court may have committed an error of law, in analyzing plaintiff?s request for adverse inference instruction as sanction for government?s failure to preserve email, by equating the intentional conduct necessary for such an instruction with bad faith; appellate court would leave it to trial court to consider request for adverse inference instruction on remand, but observed that (even absent a court order) the duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before litigation when party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mabe v. Bell, 2008 WL 4911144 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units

New Albertsons Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court issued writ of mandate vacating award of sanctions against defendant for spoliation of video and photographic evidence where trial court had no statutory or inherent authority to order sanctions absent defendant?s violation of a court order or sufficiently egregious or exceptional circumstances and, where by failing to timely move to compel further response upon Albertson?s alleged deficient production, plaintiffs waived their rights to do so

Nature of Case: Negligence and premises liability

Electronic Data Involved: Video and photographic evidence

J&M Assocs., Inc. v. Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008 WL 5102246 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted potentially relevant emails despite a duty to preserve, court granted defendants access to plaintiff?s servers to perform electronic recovery of deleted emails; court ordered defendant to retain independent professional to perform recovery at defendants? expense and for recovered emails to be provided directly to plaintiff?s counsel for review and production

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails

John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Applying a five-factor balancing test and in light of significant confidentiality and federalism concerns present in the case, Sixth Circuit concluded that certain aspects of district court’s orders constituted a ?demonstrable abuse of discretion,? and granted, in part, defendants? petition for mandamus and set aside those provisions of the district court’s orders that required forensic imaging of state-owned and privately owned computers, including the provisions that required U.S. Marshal or his designee to assist plaintiffs’ computer expert in execution of orders

Nature of Case: Class action on behalf of roughly 550,000 children seeking to enforce their rights under federal law to various medical services

Electronic Data Involved: State-owned and privately owned computers

Arista Records, LLC v. Does 1-12, 2008 WL 4133874 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Good cause existed to grant plaintiffs’ application for expedited discovery prior to Rule 26(f) conference given possibility that ISP may destroy information that could identify Doe defendants, discovery request was narrowly tailored and would substantially contribute to moving case forward, and defendants could not be identified without requested information; to protect any privacy rights or first amendment protections of Doe defendants, court set out procedure for ISP to first contact subscribers prior to releasing their information and set deadlines for any motions to quash

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Names and contact information for ISP subscribers

Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve laptop by continued use and by running defragmentation program, court imposed sanction of fees and costs and precluded defendants from making particular arguments that became unverifiable as result of failure to preserve; where forensic examination revealed creation of false evidence on laptop, court ordered accused defendant to show cause why matter should not be referred for prosecution

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Martone v. Burgess, 2008 WL 5120047 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice if required to preserve information, failed to adequately establish the inaccessibility of the information sought, and failed to demonstrate the absence of ?questions serious enough to require litigation,? court granted plaintiffs? motion for preliminary injunction and preservation order requiring defendants to preserve information useful for identifying persons accessing plaintiffs? intellectual property through defendants? website

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding visitors to a particular website

Tag:Data Preservation