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

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s internet browsing history was highly relevant to her claims and to establish damages but was lost as the result of her computer crashing and the use of a cleaning program after the duty to preserve arose, the court did not conclude that Plaintiff acted intentionally to deprive Defendant of the information (citing a lack of evidence to dispute Plaintiff?s claim that she regularly cleaned her hard drives prior to litigation) but did find that sanctions were warranted to cure prejudice and indicated that the court would ?presume that the absence of any cookies is unfavorable to Feist in that she cannot attribute a specific number of redirections to Paxfire? and precluded Feist from arguing in favor of statutory damages for specific internet searches or proffering evidence of specific violations

Nature of Case: Wiretap Act violations

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Key Insight: Where Defendant used CCleaner on his work laptop and failed to produce three thumb drives, court concluded that the relevance prong of its analysis was satisfied (noting Plaintiff?s lack of credibility), that there was a duty to preserve, and that information was actually suppressed or withheld and, citing Rule 37(e,) imposed a presumptive adverse inference upon the determination that the loss was intentional, based on the timing of the spoliation (shortly following receipt of a cease and desist letter, including Plaintiff?s potential claims), among other things

Nature of Case: Claims arising from employee’s departure and start of competing business

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Where Defendant explained that certain emails were not produced because he lost access to the account which subsequently expired and thus the emails were not in his possession custody or control, the court concluded that the duty to preserve was triggered prior to the expiration of the account by the filing of a separate lawsuit involving the same at-issue property in which the parties to this case were codefendants and explained in footnote that it could locate no case law limiting the duty to preserve to an adversary as opposed to all parties to litigation and noted that the duty to preserve ?may carry over to subsequent lawsuits involving the same subject matter?; finding the spoliation was prejudicial but not intentional, the court ordered the jury be informed of the failure to preserve, but not instructed to presume anything about the content of the emails

Nature of Case: Breach of Settlement Agreement

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

Key Insight: Applying 5th Circuit common law (but acknowledging the outcome of the motion would not change under recently-amended Rule 37(e)), the court declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of relevant documents pursuant to Defendant?s document retention policy at a time when there was no duty to preserve and, in its discussion of bad faith, noted that the court ?does ?not draw an inference of bad faith when documents are destroyed under a routine policy??

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including committee minutes and product testing documents

Key Insight: Where pro se prisoner sought production of video footage of the alleged use of excessive force but failed to request the video or file a grievance for 30 days and the tape was recorded over, the court found that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that Defendant had not taken reasonable steps to preserve the footage or that Defendant acted with the intent to deprive and denied the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner defendant, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Key Insight: Where the court acknowledged that after a duty to preserve arose in 2009 Plaintiff ?did little, if anything, to prevent the loss of emails,? including failing to instruct employees to retain relevant documents and emails and failing to backup emails stored on employees individual hard drives, but where Defendant failed to establish bad faith or an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose an adverse inference or other serious sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2) but, upon finding that the loss of emails was prejudicial to Defendant (where the parties offered competing narratives regarding whether Defendant was informed regarding Plaintiff?s limitations on the use of its images), ordered that the defendant ?may introduce evidence concerning the loss of the e-mails and may make an argument to the jury concerning the effect of the loss of the e-mails?

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails