Tag:FRCP 37(e) Preservation (effective Dec. 1, 2015)

Key Insight: Court found Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to preserve ESI when she turned her phone in to Verizon on August 15, 2016. Defendants claimed text messages on the Plaintiff?s phone could have shown she was acting as a manager and was hence an exempt employee. Defendants discussed their position with Plaintiff?s counsel in June, 2016 and the phone was de-activated two months later. Plaintiff testified she did not know she had to keep the phone to preserve the ESI. The Court found this testimony credible and recommended, pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1) that the ??[C]ourt order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice? and proposed an instruction to the jury that Plaintiff had a duty to maintain potential ESI contained on her phone, but failed to do so and indicated the court could also instruct the jury as to any inference to draw from Plaintiff?s failure to preserve texts on her phone.

Nature of Case: Employment litigation, unpaid overtime

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where Defendants ?failed to clear the threshold issue of showing that relevant evidence was lost or destroyed? or, in the case of the alleged spoliation of ESI of one former employee, where defendants failed to show that the emails could not be replaced through additional discovery in light of the production of some of the employee?s emails from other computers

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: For an individual defendant?s admitted disposal of his laptop and deletion of the contents of his external drive after transferring the contents to a thumb drive despite Plaintiff?s request to preserve and pending litigation, the court reasoned that Plaintiff ?plausibly suggests? that the laptop and hard drive ?might have? contained relevant ESI based on Defendant?s admitted accessing and copying of confidential files and imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and an order for Defendants to permit and pay for examination of the at-issue external drive, but the court declined to impose sanctions for the individual defendant?s loss of his cellphone ?based on the current state of the evidentiary record? where Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence sufficient to suggest that the loss was not inadvertent or to clarify the approximate time of the loss

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop, ESI, cellular phone

Key Insight: Court found Defendant?s failure to preserve a vehicle?s Electronic Control Module (ECM) data after it was aware of a severe accident, contrary to the Defendant?s ?normal practice,? constituted spoliation. Court denied Plaintiffs? motion for a negative inference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (e) as the Plaintiffs were able to reconstruct the accident and vehicle?s speed from other sources and that the failure to preserve was not intentional based on the defendants? plausible, though erroneous, understanding that the data was overridden by the removal of the damaged vehicle from the scene. Court found a jury instruction that ECM data was not preserved and allowing both parties to present evidence and argument at trial regarding defendant?s failure to preserve the data to be a sufficiently effective sanction.

Nature of Case: Personal injury (auto accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Control Module (ECM)