Tag:Data Preservation

1
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)
2
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)
3
Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)
4
In re Gupta, 263 S.W. 3d 184 (2007)
5
Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)
6
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)
7
CSI Inv. Partners, II v. Cendant Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
8
Kellogg v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4570871 (D. Neb. Dec. 26, 2007)
9
Paul v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2727222 (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2007)
10
Performance Chevrolet, Inc. v. Market Scan Info. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 1042359 (D. Idaho Apr. 18, 2006)

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1514005 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2007)

Key Insight: Where magistrate judge found that defendant “deliberately and stubbornly refused to produce the most basic information about its Ohio contacts and has likely destroyed much of that information after it put those contacts directly at issue,” magistrate judge denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as least drastic discovery sanction and awarded plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Database

John B. v. Goetz, 2007 WL 4014015 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Ruling on defense motions for clarification, court directed that plaintiffs? expert and court-appointed monitor shall ?forthwith inspect the State?s computer systems and computers of the fifty (50) key custodians that contain information relevant to this action,? that plaintiffs? expert or his designee ?shall make forensic copies of any computer inspected to ensure the preservation of all existing electronically stored information (?ESI?)?; court further ordered that United States Marshall should accompany the plaintiffs? expert to ?ensure that this Order is fully executed.?

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

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems of defendant Tennessee state agencies

Stroupe v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2007 WL 3223224 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 2007)

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction not warranted for defendant’s routine destruction of surveillance videotapes created on date of incident; defendant presented evidence that there was no videotape that depicted the subject area where the incident occurred and plaintiff did not show that destroyed videotapes contained any images or information relevant to any issue at trial

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotapes

In re Gupta, 263 S.W. 3d 184 (2007)

Key Insight: Appellate court denied petition for writ of mandamus where trial court appropriately ordered ?death penalty sanctions? (struck all pleadings) for defendant?s discovery violations including repeated failure to produce relevant information, repeated production of fraudulent materials, including diskettes and computers, and repeated false representations to the court; plaintiff filed three motions to compel and at least two motions for sanctions resulting in more than $60,000 in fines before imposition of ?death penalty sanctions? by trial court

Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, diskettes, ESI

Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for ultimate sanction of dismissal based upon defendant’s loss of videotape, since there was no proof of willful or bad faith destruction and marginal relevance of missing videotape was such that plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the case was not meaningfully compromised

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape showing unpleasant encounter between plaintiff and customer which preceded plaintiff’s termination

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)

Key Insight: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

CSI Inv. Partners, II v. Cendant Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant lost highly relevant financial and marketing data during data conversion but did not reveal the fact of the lost evidence until 3-1/2 years after plaintiffs originally requested it, and defendant raised frivolous and vexatious objections to plaintiffs’ requests for production, court found bad faith and ordered defendant to pay $720,000 to plaintiffs, representing 15 percent of plaintiffs? attorneys fees, as sanction for discovery misconduct

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and marketing data

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

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

Performance Chevrolet, Inc. v. Market Scan Info. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 1042359 (D. Idaho Apr. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied parties’ cross-motions for sanctions based upon spoliation; deletion of software files was unauthorized act by an employee of plaintiff 14 months before case was filed and litigation was not yet reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Contract breach and fraud involving leased software

Electronic Data Involved: Software files on computer hard drive

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.