Tag:Data Preservation

1
Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)
2
Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)
3
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)
4
Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)
5
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
6
Clark Constr. Group, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 229 F.R.D. 131 (W.D. Tenn. 2005)
7
Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)
8
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)
9
United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)
10
Burgess v. Goord, 2005 WL 1458236 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2005)

Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court’s preliminary injunction included the following provision: “Pending resolution of this litigation, the Defendants shall not destroy, delete, or alter electronically stored file information.”

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed damage to its goodwill and business reputation based upon Internet postings regarding a particular vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to overbroad request for all emails, finding that defendants’ production of all existing emails sent to or from plaintiff, or pertaining to plaintiff’s performance during relevant time period was a reasonable attempt to provide responsive information; court further rejected plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause regarding possible spoliation, concluding that it was not reasonable for defendants “to have foreseen that all e-mails would be relevant to plaintiff’s situation”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 WL 3851151 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006)

Key Insight: Court directed defendants to confirm in writing whether it searched particular email accounts or conduct such search if it had not already done so; court further denied plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions based upon defendant’s alleged failure to preserve chat room comments since it was highly unlikely that any comments by members of the public that would be pertinent to the lawsuit would have been received, since chat room was opened after relevant time period and technology to save chat room comments was not installed until over a year later

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Chat room comments; email

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted whole directories without looking at their contents and designed drive wiping program to write over data indiscriminately after he had notice of the pendency of the litigation, court concluded that ?the extreme nature? of plaintiff?s bad faith behavior, combined with harm done to defendants, merited dismissal of plaintiff?s claims with prejudice; court further ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $65,000 to reimburse them for expenses incurred in investigating and litigating spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Retaliation under False Claims Act and other federal statutes, and Washington state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Clark Constr. Group, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 229 F.R.D. 131 (W.D. Tenn. 2005)

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions against city in the form of a rebuttable adverse inference, and fees and costs related to the discovery dispute, based upon city’s grossly negligent failure to institute litigation hold and consequent destruction of relevant hard copy documents

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Email printouts and other hard copy documents

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed case with prejudice because, among other things, plaintiffs had failed to preserve relevant electronic data that plaintiffs knew were critical, and it would be impossible for defendants to defend the case without the electronic data that was not produced and no longer available

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preservation order, finding that plaintiff had not made a showing of a significant threat that documents would be lost or destroyed absent entry of an immediate order, and concluding that the regular procedures for discovery (including the court’s Electronic Discovery Guidelines) were sufficient and appropriate

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic evidence

Burgess v. Goord, 2005 WL 1458236 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied inmate’s request to preserve videotapes allegedly showing he was denied food trays because they were irrelevant to inmate’s claims; complaint alleged that he was denied medical treatment and should be transferred to another facility, not that he was denied food trays

Nature of Case: Inmate sought injunctive relief transferring him to a different facility

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

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