Tag:Data Preservation

1
Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2007)
2
Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)
3
Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)
4
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 2327073 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007)
5
Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)
6
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 1686327 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007)
7
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
8
Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007)
9
Cyntegra, Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 2007 WL 5193736 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007)
10
RMS Servs.-USA, Inc. v. Houston, 2007 WL 1058923 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2007)

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D. Pa. 2007)

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not warranted for defendant’s failure to preserve copies of screenshots that may have been automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers, since plaintiff’s counsel’s preservation letter said nothing about preserving temporary cache files, defendant had no reason to believe such files were relevant, files were deleted automatically and not through any affirmative action by defendant, defendant produced forensic images of its hard drives, and plaintiff established little if any prejudice from loss of cache files

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Copies of archived website screenshots automatically stored in temporary cache files of defendant’s computers

Agassi Enters., Inc. v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 4441195 (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting preliminary injunction, court further ordered defendant to “preserve all documents and other evidence (including, but not limited to, electronic documents such as email relating to its use of the AGASSI name . . .” and, within 30 days of the order, to file and serve a report detailing the manner and form in which Target complied with the preliminary injunction

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, email

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 1054279 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 2007)

Key Insight: Where corporate designee could not fully answer questions regarding certain topics listed in Rule 30(b)(6) notice pertaining to plaintiff?s computer servers, software, data storage and retention, or plaintiff?s efforts to search for responsive email and documents, and did not know ?exactly how [the e-discovery vendor] searched? plaintiff?s servers or ?what all was on? the CD that was produced to defendants, court found that witness was inadequately prepared and ordered plaintiff to produce a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) witness on those topics

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email; hardware and software; systems information

Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 2327073 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to produce email, failed to properly preserve email, and had not complied with orders to timely produce discovery, nor paid plaintiffs’ costs of bringing discovery motions as ordered nor paid sanctions to court as directed, and repeatedly failed to follow local rules with respect to timely and properly filing documents, court granted plaintiff’s motion for case dispositive sanctions; trial would be on the issue of damages only, and only plaintiff’s evidence would be admitted given defendants’ failure to file witness or exhibit lists

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2007 WL 1686327 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Declining to grant sanction of dismissal since there was insufficient evidence of intentional or bad faith conduct, or adverse inference instruction since it was unclear how relevant the missing email was, court awarded monetary sanctions since Spain?s failure to timely implement adequate litigation hold and failure to conduct timely and diligent search for electronic discovery was negligent and resulted in loss of email; court further directed Spain to complete its forensic search for email records and produce such records on rolling basis

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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