Key Insight: Following additional briefing by parties on attorneys’ fees and adverse inference instruction, magistrate awarded plaintiff $563,843 in fees and $2,998 in costs for its counsel’s efforts on sanctions motion and to secure discovery and crafted jury instruction based upon that adopted in Zubulake V
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Sanctions not warranted where plaintiffs made ?tenuous allegation? without any specific evidentiary support that defendants had implemented a new email document retention policy after litigation was commenced and that potentially relative emails may have been destroyed pursuant to the policy
Nature of Case: Claimed violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Entry of default judgment on issue of liability and imposition of other discovery sanctions against insurer for failure to produce computer data and other discovery abuses was not an abuse of discretion
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Database
Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion for on-site inspection of computer records granted and defendant ordered to pay all plaintiffs’ expenses and legal fees unnecessarily expended due to defendant’s failure to make an accurate disclosure of its computer capabilities in December 1998
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Computerized information re purchase of goods bearing plaintiffs’ trademarks
Key Insight: Finding no bad faith in defendant’s failure to preserve email since defendants simply persevered in their normal document retention practices, court nonetheless ruled that plaintiff would be allowed to prove the facts reflecting the non-retention of email and argue to the trier of fact that this destruction of evidence, in addition to other proof offered at trial, warranted certain inferences
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Adverse inference jury instruction against defendant for its prelitigation destruction of tape-recorded voice radio communications between train crew and dispatchers on date of collision was proper, but refusal to permit testimony offered by defendant to rebut the adverse inference was abuse of discretion
Nature of Case: Negligence
Electronic Data Involved: Tape-recorded voice radio communications
Key Insight: Finding defendant’s actions went “far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct that led to the nonproduction of all technical e-mails,” district court affirmed the spoliation inference jury instruction and monetary sanctions imposed by magistrate
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s use of Cyberscrub data wiping software prior to court-ordered inspection of her computer and after agreeing on the record that she would not purge her hard drive or delete any documents, and her misrepresentations about age of hard drive, were not sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal but did warrant an adverse inference instruction
Nature of Case: Sexual harassment and whistleblower claims by former employee
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer
Key Insight: Where, after months of discovery disputes, reports upon which defendant urged plaintiff to rely in lieu of full database turned out to be inaccurate, court denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment for discovery abuse and instead postponed trial so that defendant could produce accurate information; however, court imposed monetary sanctions against defendant representing plaintiff’s legal and expert fees for time spent working with inaccurate data
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Database, reports, electronic data
Key Insight: Plaintiff’s failure to preserve computer printouts and telephone lists loaded onto Palm Pilot did not warrant an adverse inference instruction, but did warrant monetary sanctions of $28,271.75 to be paid by party (not his attorney) to compensate the victim for attorneys’ fees and expenses arising both from additional discovery required to locate equivalent information by alternative means and from the motion practice necessitated by the spoliation
Nature of Case: Action seeking monetary damages and specific performance of stock option agreement
Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy material loaded onto Palm Pilot
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.