Data Preservation – Page 92 – Electronic Discovery Law

Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Resolving various discovery issues, court found defendants? explanation of document search sufficient and observed that plaintiff could not identify any particular document or category of missing documents based on evidence aside from his own incredulity; court added that, if gaps evolved after defendants’ supplementation of production, plaintiff could revisit the issue

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Paul v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2727222 (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s post-trial motion for reimbursement of $292,000 incurred to preserve large volume of ESI as demanded by plaintiff at outset of litigation, finding that plaintiffs? demand, while arguably unreasonable, was not so abusive as to warrant sanctions; court noted that, where plaintiff demanded preservation of huge amounts of ESI and parties were not able to agree on narrowed scope of information to be preserved, defendant, ?like all parties, was left to make a reasonable judgment about what information must be preserved?

Nature of Case: Putative class action under Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information in all databases maintained by defendant, any and all e-mail, and other broad categories of information

McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 2007 WL 433291 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon defendant?s claimed inability to retrieve the contents of plaintiff?s email account, where defendant had identified several older emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge (to support its termination of plaintiff) but represented in discovery that its employees’ email accounts were overwritten beginning on the eighth day after a message was either sent or received and that no additional emails existed beyond those produced; court suggested that defendant investigate the matter and be prepared, if requested in discovery, to provide a further explanation of the apparent discrepancy between its ability to retrieve emails at the time of plaintiff?s discharge and its current ability to do so

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information

Nature of Case: Putative class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses

Koninklike Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 3101248 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where among other things defendants failed to produce documents in violation of court orders, made false statements regarding alleged damage to computer servers and destroyed computer servers in violation of court orders (thereby preventing an independent inspection regarding allegations that servers were damaged), court found that defendants? willful and bad faith discovery misconduct prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to obtain a fair trial on the merits and that lesser sanctions would not adequately rectify the prejudice and delay; court thus struck defendants? answers and entered default judgments against them

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Servers

Floeter v. City of Orlando, 2007 WL 486633 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on city’s overwriting of backup tapes and failure to preserve computer’s hard drive, where subject computer had been reassigned and its hard drive re-imaged before discovery requests were served, missing evidence was not crucial to plaintiff’s claims, and destruction of the material was not done in bad faith

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive and backup tapes

Jacobs v. Scribner, 2007 WL 1994235 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Noting that a motion to preserve evidence requires court to consider: 1) level of concern for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the absence of a preservation order; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to party seeking preservation absent such an order; and 3) capability of individual or entity to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial burdens created by ordering the evidence preservation, court denied (without prejudice) motion for entry of preservation order as premature since defendants had not yet appeared

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Videotaped interviews relevant to plaintiff’s claims

Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Puckett v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., 2007 WL 7122747 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions but, despite prior production of the information in hard copy, ordered defendant to restore and re-produce information from backup tapes where the information was ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? and where defendant asserted that it?s ?documentation? was maintained in electronic form in the usual course of business, and ordered the parties to split the costs; court declined to compel defendant?s search of computers which ?may or may not have been utilized by plaintiff and his comparators? where requiring a search of an unknown number of computers in various offices with the possibility that no relevant individuals utilized them was unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, computers

Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that defendants had taken steps to prevent spoliation of evidence and the only support for preservation order was that defense counsel had been accused of destroying evidence in a separate case, court found that plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of past evidence destruction by the parties to this case and concluded that preservation order was not necessary

Nature of Case: RICO civil action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Data Preservation