Tag:Motion for Preservation Order

1
Mabe v. Bell, 2008 WL 4911144 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2008)
2
Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)
3
Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)
4
Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)
5
Forrest v. All Cities Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 2007 WL 3026787 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2007)
6
LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)
7
Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
8
Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)
9
United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)
10
Schnall v. Annuity and Life RE (Holdings), Ltd., 2004 WL 51117 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2004)

Mabe v. Bell, 2008 WL 4911144 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for expedited discovery to image defendants? and third parties? computers pursuant to Rule 45 where inspection sought evidence of defamation unrelated to plaintiff?s claims of fraud in connections with the sale of securities and other related fraud

Nature of Case: Securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, backup tapes, removable storage units

Marin v. Evans, 2007 WL 655456 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2007)

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that defendants had taken steps to prevent spoliation of evidence and the only support for preservation order was that defense counsel had been accused of destroying evidence in a separate case, court found that plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of past evidence destruction by the parties to this case and concluded that preservation order was not necessary

Nature of Case: RICO civil action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Paris Bus. Prods., Inc. v. Genisis Techs., LLC, 2007 WL 3125184 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff submitted photographs of defendant?s computers showing that hard drive from one computer had been tampered with and that hard drives for other computers were missing altogether, and defendants did not oppose substance of sanctions motion, court found that plaintiff had established the four requirements necessary for spoliation inference: (1) evidence in question was within the party’s control; (2) there was actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) evidence destroyed or withheld was relevant to claims or defenses; and (4) it was reasonably foreseeable that evidence would later be discoverable

Nature of Case: Fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Hudson Global Res. Holdings, Inc. v. Hill, 2007 WL 1545678 (W.D. Pa. May 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for TRO/preliminary injunction, court also ordered counsel to confer and suggest within ten days an agreeable method by which plaintiff, through its computer forensics expert or otherwise, may access and permanently delete or retrieve its information from defendant’s portable external hard drive and personal computer which were in court’s custody

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Business data; laptop and portable hard drive

Forrest v. All Cities Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 2007 WL 3026787 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2007)

Key Insight: In case where defendant was shutting down its business effective November 1, 2007 and plaintiffs argued that shutdown raised possibility of evidence spoliation, court denied plaintiffs? request for order requiring defendant to preserve documents related to lawsuit since plaintiffs offered no evidence that defendant was actually destroying evidence or failing to retain relevant documentation and because defendant?s duty to prevent spoliation of relevant evidence was inherent in judicial process and business shutdown did not impact it

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified evidence

LR5-A Ltd. P’ship v. Meadow Creek, LLC, 2007 WL 4248100 (Mass.Super.)

Key Insight: Court declined to enter non-destruction order since it had already advised party’s counsel about possible penalties for spoliation and assumed that the message had been passed along; court further denied request for array of orders compelling party to make extensive searches of electronic documents and to permit forensic computer expert to examine all network servers, desktop and laptop computers, hard drives, backup tapes, and PDAs for responsive documents

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: This order constitutes the parties? stipulated Electronic Discovery Plan and Order to Preserve Evidence, which includes definitions of various terms and sets out a number of discovery ?protocols?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States ex rel. Smith v. Boeing Co., 2005 WL 2105972 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preservation order, finding that plaintiff had not made a showing of a significant threat that documents would be lost or destroyed absent entry of an immediate order, and concluding that the regular procedures for discovery (including the court’s Electronic Discovery Guidelines) were sufficient and appropriate

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic evidence

Schnall v. Annuity and Life RE (Holdings), Ltd., 2004 WL 51117 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants had actual notice of allegations against them and affirmatively stated that they were fully aware of their preservation obligations under PSLRA and sanctions for failure to comply, court declined to enter preservation order

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Documents, data compilations (including electronically recorded or stored data), and tangible objects

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