Tag:Deleted Data

1
Ameriwood Indus., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 685623 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2007)
2
Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)
3
Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)
4
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)
5
Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006)
6
Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)
7
Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)
8
In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)
9
Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)
10
Powertrain, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. 2006 WL 709784 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2006)

Ameriwood Indus., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 685623 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2007)

Key Insight: On joint motion for clarification of court’s December 27, 2006 order, court approved parties’ agreed search term protocol but denied plaintiff’s request for list of ?hits? generated by searches; court further approved joint request for expert to provide information concerning defendants’ usage of their computer equipment, specifically: (1) use of erasure software or ?defragmentation? software; (2) use of detachable, portable storage media to access or download files; (3) evidence of mass deletions of files; and (4) evidence of large gaps in the contents of the files

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, deleted email and other files

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Bishop v. Toys ?R? US-NY, LLC, 2007 WL 2042913 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2007)

Key Insight: Overruling plaintiff’s objection that magistrate judge’s sanctions order did not go far enough and should have required defendant to retain a computer forensic expert to examine surveillance equipment to determine whether deleted images were recoverable, court found that order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law since defendant had produced affidavit of individual who personally installed and serviced the surveillance system who stated that he inspected the surveillance data system and determined that the images were not recoverable

Nature of Case: Customer asserted federal civil rights claims arising from his detention by store security guards

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 3171299 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where witness testified at his deposition that he did not recall receiving plaintiff?s litigation hold memorandum and had deleted unspecified email to ?clean up,? and plaintiff subsequently conducted forensic search of deponent?s computer hard drive, recovered available deleted emails and stated it would produce responsive email not previously produced, court found that defendant failed to establish two necessary elements of spoliation, since evidence was insufficient to show there were any ?missing? emails that would constitute “evidence,” or that any of the “missing evidence” was crucial to defendant’s claims or defenses

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006)

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions of $36,391 where defendants “made no effort whatsoever to locate and provide either documentary or electronic data discovery,” and erroneously represented that relevant electronic evidence was irretrievable, thus giving plaintiffs no choice but to incur the extraordinary expense of hiring a computer consulting firm to retrieve what was purportedly ?irretrievable?

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Arista Records, LLC v. Tschirhart, 2006 WL 2728927 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006)

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

In re Atlantic Int’l Mortg. Co., 352 B.R. 503 (Aug. 2, 2006)

Key Insight: Although it concluded that default judgment against former general counsel was not warranted, court found that discovery misconduct of former general counsel and its attorneys bordered on obstruction and awarded trustee its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in pursuing all discovery in the proceeding

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy trustee sued debtor’s former general counsel for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computer systems and electronic records

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. DiMartinis, 2006 WL 3240116 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of an exact image of the hard drive of defendant’s personal computer and instead ordered that the examination of and production from defendant’s personal computer proceed on the terms spelled out in defendant’s responses to the motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: PC hard drive

Powertrain, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. 2006 WL 709784 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 15, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s request for Rule 56(f) continuance and dismissed defendant’s motion for summary judgment as premature and with leave to refile once defendant had fulfilled all its discovery obligations, where plaintiff had already filed a number of discovery motions and sought, among other things, “information contained in emails which appear to have been deleted by Honda as part of its corporate policy (and which are the subject of a separate Motion for Order Preserving Electronic Data, to Recover[] Deleted Data and Show Cause which is pending before the magistrate)”

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted email

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