Deleted Data – Page 5 – Electronic Discovery Law

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, No. 4:12-CV-1253 CAS, 2013 WL 4028275 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court granted cross-claim plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-claim defendant to produce computer and cell phone used by decedent by shipping those devices from Jonesboro, Arkansas to St. Louis, Missouri (at cross-claim plaintiff’s expense) for forensic examination because cross-claim defendant’s production of copies of cell phone text messages and a non-forensic copy of the computer hard drive were insufficient to respond to plaintiff’s request for production of the devices themselves, since the copies did not allow for forensic examination of the devices, and because the slight inconvenience to cross-claim defendant in not having access to the cell phone and computer for a period of time was outweighed by the significant additional expense cross-claim plaintiff would incur if she were required to examine the devices in Jonesboro

Nature of Case: Probate matter

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and cell phone used by decedent

Anderson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-111-SJM, 2013 WL 4455602 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation

Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives

Stirling v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dept., No. 4:11CV01932, 2013 WL 2244638 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an individual defendant?s emails were deleted pursuant to the county?s ?routine system updates? and were therefore unavailable when requested, the court clarified that the duty to preserve arises ?when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation?most commonly when suit has already been filed ?? and NOT when a request is served and ordered defendants to search all available sources where the emails may still exist, including backup files, and to file a notice with the court advising it of such sources and that defendants must show cause why they should not be required to retrieve and produce such documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 5655984 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to produce subject videos or make his hard drive available for mirror imaging as required by court’s order, but plaintiff ultimately obtained the subject videos from Google, court denied plaintiff’s request for case-dispositive sanctions but would impose an adverse inference instruction in the form of a mandatory presumption in light of multiple warnings to defendant that sanctions would result if he did not produce the information and in light of other “violative and unmannered conduct” of defendant in the litigation

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Videos defendant posted to YouTube, instructional DVD and manual

Davis v. Carmel Clay Schools, No. 1:11-cv-00771-SEB-MJD, 2013 WL 5487340 (S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where school did not keep records identifying the individuals who requested that hard drive of camera located inside school bus be removed, nor did school keep logs of who handled and/or viewed such hard drives once they were removed, and hard drive containing video footage of alleged assault was removed from subject school bus and then subsequently reinstalled on a different bus by persons unknown, resulting in overwriting of file containing segment that would have captured alleged assault, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions finding no evidence to support a conclusion that the act of reinserting the hard drive into another bus was undertaken in order to destroy adverse evidence as opposed to its being mere negligence in the handling of the hard drive, and no evidence to support conclusion that any employee of the school manually deleted the video files in an effort to destroy evidence; court would revisit issue if additional evidence came to light

Nature of Case: Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 claims that plaintiff was subject to unlawful peer-on-peer harassment that violated his constitutional rights, and that school failed to properly train its officials in recognizing and responding to sexual assault and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive from video camera installed on school bus where incident allegedly occurred

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Stone & Webster, Inc., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 1414070 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had ?practical ability? to obtain documents from third-party consultant, and thus ?control? of the documents for purposes of discovery, but declined to impose sanctions, despite finding that plaintiff had failed to issue a litigation hold letter and to ensure that its consultant?s records were being preserved, where investigation revealed that limited responsive documents were recovered from the consultant?s backup tapes and that only one was never produced and thus, plaintiff and its consultant had rebutted the suggestion that defendant was prejudiced; affirmed by District Court 2012 WL 1849101

Nature of Case: claims arising from construction contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

Estate of Carlock v. Williamson, No. 08-3075, 2012 WL 3878595 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions and for appointment of special master absent evidence that allegedly relevant audio and video were lost in bad faith and where, despite ?concern? over loss of emails resulting from failure to timely suspend automatic deletions, the court ?[did] not find that relevant evidence was destroyed? and further indicated doubt that relevant emails existed; court further found that failure to suspend automatic deletions was merely negligent and not in bad faith; as to unsearched hard drives, court noted that the parties had already expended a large amount of time and money searching for relevant deleted evidence to no avail and that in light of doubts that relevant email ever existed, there was ?nothing to gain by searching those hard drives?

Nature of Case: Death of inmate while incarcerated

Electronic Data Involved: Audio, video, emails, hard drives

Tag:Deleted Data