Key Insight: Rejecting each of defendant?s objections, court adopted Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge imposing monetary sanctions for discovery violations but did not adopt recommendation for adverse inference instruction because summary judgment in favor of defendant rendered issue moot
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code, document retention policies
Key Insight: Where handwritten IIR was included with numerous other similar documents and destroyed en masse by airline under document retention policy, court found that, although there was a ?disturbing amount of carelessness on defendant’s part? in its retention and production of the IIRs, plaintiff had not demonstrated that handwritten IIR would have been favorable to her case or that she was prejudiced by its absence; accordingly, court declined to impose any spoliation sanctions but awarded plaintiff her fees and costs in connection with motion
Nature of Case: Airline passenger allegedly injured by another passenger sued airline claiming negligent failure to protect and gross negligence
Electronic Data Involved: Original handwritten ?Inflight Irregularity Report? and conflicting electronic versions of same
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered only an inference that evidence was destroyed based on ?the mere lack of evidence? produced by defendant and where plaintiffs failed to take timely action to address discovery disputes, court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation; addressing plaintiffs? argument that defendant?s failure to issue a timely litigation hold notice resulted in destruction of evidence, court noted, ?[w]hile a party must ?put in place a ?litigation hold? to ensure the preservation of relevant documents, there is no requirement that it must be written.? [citation omitted]
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email
Key Insight: Court declined to enforce prior Order compelling discovery where defendants produced documents from limited time frame but could produce no more because the information was recycled pursuant to its previously disclosed retention policy, prior to defendant?s notice of the lawsuit; court declined to compel production of alternative information because it was not what plaintiffs originally sought or what was required by the Order
Nature of Case: Unlawful conspiracy to prevent and suppress competition
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on back up tapes
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
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
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
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
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
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
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.