Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions but not adverse inference instruction where defendant negligently failed to implement adequate litigation hold and preserve electronic evidence, but evidence was insufficient to show defendant acted in bad faith or with culpable state of mind or that plaintiff had suffered any prejudice
Nature of Case: Environmental litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Email and backup tapes
Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion
Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Court entered default judgment as discovery sanction where forensic evidence showed that defendant deliberately used ?wiping? software to permanently remove data from her hard drive and stated: “The sanction in the present case is to deter other defendants in similar cases from attempting to destroy or conceal evidence of their wrongdoing.”
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions based upon defendant’s failure to produce complete copy of particular monthly medical report where plaintiffs failed to show that duty to preserve attached to the report, or that report was crucial to their claims, and there was no evidence of bad faith, especially since defendant had gone to “extraordinary lengths” to attempt to retrieve a copy of the complete report
Nature of Case: Civil rights, excessive force
Electronic Data Involved: Monthly medical report
Key Insight: Conviction of Arthur Anderson for obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC affirmed; conviction was based on government’s allegations that, in order to protect the firm and the firm’s largest single account (Enron), Anderson ordered a mass destruction of documents to keep them from the hands of the SEC; Anderson unsuccessfully attempted to cloak the destruction of documents under the auspices of its document retention policies
Nature of Case: Criminal charge of obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC
Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents
Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendant’s hard drives so that plaintiff’s computer forensics expert could search them for deleted emails since there was no evidence that defendant had consciously or purposely deleted emails and plaintiff had only “suspicions and allegations” which did not justify the costly and burdensome search requested
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ ex parte application for leave to take immediate discovery from defendants’ Internet Service Provider, whose subscriber activity log files would allow plaintiffs to discover each defendant’s true name, address and other identifying information
Nature of Case: Copyright infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ISP’s subscriber activity logs
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to revise earlier court order denying production of computer hard drives for review by forensics expert, declining to adopt the law of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) and finding that defendant had violated no duty to preserve since emails were deleted according to routine policy and at the time she filed the complaint, plaintiff made no request that emails be preserved
Nature of Case: Age discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email
Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval
Nature of Case: Disability discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.