Tag:Data Preservation

1
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
2
Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)
3
Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)
4
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)
5
Interface Sec. Sys., L.L.C. v. May, 2007 WL 1300394 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2007)
6
Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 2007 WL 3377215 (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2007)
7
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)
8
LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)
9
Woodburn Const. Co. v. Encon Pacific, LLC, 2007 WL 1287845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2007)
10
Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of: (1) electronic data used to answer interrogatories, (2) information systems organizational charts, (3) policies and records regarding electronic data, electronic backup, electronic data retention and destruction, finding that the requests could lead to relevant evidence regarding what efforts defendant made to preserve ESI, since plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to produce ESI with its initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1)

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI used to answer interrogatories; backup and retention policies

Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff stored majority of its documents on third-party servers and failed to make payment to maintain the service, resulting in deletion of relevant documents, court declined to enter default judgment and monetary sanctions but instead would allow lesser sanction of adverse inference instruction, since (1) plaintiff had control, albeit indirectly, over destroyed information; (2) plaintiff was at least negligent in not taking any affirmative steps to preserve documents, and (3) evidence was relevant to defense

Nature of Case: Antitrust, tortious interference with contractual relations

Electronic Data Involved: Documents stored by plaintiff on third-party computer servers

Interface Sec. Sys., L.L.C. v. May, 2007 WL 1300394 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery but granted motion for preservation order since defendant did not raise any issues regarding the appropriateness of preservation of evidence and court agreed that “all documents, software and things” relating to the matter should be preserved

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, software and things

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 2007 WL 3377215 (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose spoliation sanctions against defendant university for deletion of former teaching assistant’s email account, where university backed-up the contents of the account onto two CDs before deleting it, and the deletion occurred before the lawsuit was filed

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination, civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Email

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 3046233 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant traveled 20 miles to dispose of his computer in a construction site dumpster within days of receiving notice of lawsuit, court found that defendant acted in bad faith but that sanction of default judgment was too severe since plaintiff’s claims were not “severely” or “incurably” prejudiced as a result; court instead deemed certain facts conclusively proven and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with motion and related discovery

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)

Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fortis Corporate Ins., SA v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS, 2007 WL 3287357 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, finding no basis in the record for concluding that defendant’s failure to preserve email and other materials was so blameworthy that defendant should be deprived, either in whole or part, of the opportunity to defend the case on the merits, and adding: “Perhaps in the fullness of time foreign-based companies doing business in the United States will be held to the same ‘litigation holds’ and other devices now routinely applied by litigants here to make sure pertinent documents and other materials are retained and produced. And perhaps they should be held to the same standards in an era of ever-expanding global trade. Increasingly negligence on the other side of the globe can cause injury locally.”

Nature of Case: Subrogation action against foreign-based shipowner

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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