Deleted Data – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

Plasse v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D. Mass. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where forensic inspection of plaintiff?s laptop and disks showed evidence of tampering, including: deleted files, system date and time manipulations, access histories showing that various relevant documents were accessed after court?s order and before plaintiff?s second deposition, and other fragments of relevant documents and emails that had not been produced, and plaintiff’s explanations “verge[d] on the absurd,” court found that plaintiff had engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct, dismissed complaint with prejudice, and invited defendant to submit an application for costs and attorneys? fees

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; drafts of plaintiff’s resume

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

Dec 01 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

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

Dec 01 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

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 5417506 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. Mar. 30, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

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

Frye v. St. Thomas Health Servs., 2005 WL 5417507 (Tenn. Cir. Ct. May 31, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

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

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

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

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 305601 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 18, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Where defendants avowed that they were aware of their obligations and have taken and are continuing to take all necessary steps to preserve all potentially relevant electronic evidence, court determined there was no “imminent risk” that any deleted data would be overwritten and rendered irretrievable, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for order lifting automatic stay on discovery for purpose of preserving and restoring deleted email

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Email allegedly deleted by individual defendant and his subordinates

Metro. Opera Ass?n, Inc. v. Local 100, 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: On defendant’s motion for reconsideration, court again described numerous discovery failings by the defendants, concluded that it would adhere to its prior decision at 212 F.R.D. 178, and further rejected two new arguments belatedly advanced by defendant relating the merits of plaintiff’s underlying claims

Nature of Case: Opera company sued union

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic documents; hard drives

MPCT Solutions Corp. v. Methe, 1999 WL 495115 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 1999)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Sanctions in form of preliminary injunction preventing defendant from contacting MPCT clients granted, after defendant violated preservation order by deleting documents from laptop and defragmenting hard drive, thus preventing the recovery of deleted data

Nature of Case: Enforcement of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents stored on laptop

Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 2004 WL 5326424 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 27, 2004)

Dec 01 2004

Key Insight: Court provided direction to parties for implementing injunction, ordering among other things: (1) defendant to obtain new computers of its choice and at its expense to replace all existing computers and servers; (2) defendant to choose which files would be transferred to new computers; (3) plaintiff?s expert to observe copying and transfer, and examine new computers to confirm they do not contain plaintiff?s data; (4) after transfer, defendant?s old computers to be stored and kept available for forensic discovery, the cost of which would be borne 75% by defendant and 25% by plaintiff, except that plaintiff?s expert fees to date to be divided evenly between plaintiff and defendant

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: 30 computers and 2 servers of defendant

Tag:Deleted Data