Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff lost the phone containing relevant video footage of the incident leading to plaintiff?s arrest when she attended a ?gala? carrying a ?really small purse? and thus had to hand-carry or lay down her phone and where she failed to call the banquet hall to determine if her phone was recovered (although she apparently did call her phone?s service provider and a relevant cab company in furtherance of her recovery efforts), the court declined to find that the loss was intentional and reasoned that the evidence suggested ?at most mere negligence? and that because there was a ?genuine issue of material fact regarding what transpired during the videotaping, the court [could] not find that the lost videotape was likely to favor Defendants? and thus denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewal at trial if ?Defendants could adduce evidence ? that the lost video recording was likely to be favorable to them?; notably, court applied common law spoliation analysis for loss of the phone, recognizing that the common law applied, ?except in cases involving electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Constitutional claims arising from arrest following alteration with police while Plaintiff recorded police activities

Electronic Data Involved: Lost phone containing video footage of incident leading to arrest

Key Insight: Where Defendant destroyed potentially relevant tort-claim records pursuant to its record retention schedule during pending litigation among other discovery abuses and where the trial court therefore ordered monetary sanctions for the discovery violations and indicated that it would consider a spoliation instruction, the appellate court concluded that the trial court?s record did not support a finding that ?the City destroyed the evidence in bad faith, knew that the evidence was important to the pending litigation, or had the duty to preserve the evidence? and thus, it was not clear that spoliation had occurred; error was harmless where $10,000 fine was not based on a finding of spoliation

Nature of Case: Tort (bicycling accident)

Key Insight: Where Defendant?s use of an internal utility tool on the at-issue server resulted in all of the data thereon being overwritten but where the District Court Judge found ?credible? Defendant?s explanations that he did not believe the hard drives contained relevant information and where the ?unique facts? of the case, namely the focus on Defendant?s TOR Node – which ?routed information for other end users around the world? but did not contain Defendant?s personal data – contributed to the court?s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge?s finding of intent, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge?s finding of spoliation but declined to impose default judgement and instead concluded that an adverse inference was appropriate

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

View Case Opinion

Key Insight: For a defendant?s spoliation and failure to participate in litigation, the court struck the defendant?s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and eventually also awarded default judgment and attorneys fees to the plaintiff; addressing whether to also sanction Defendant?s counsel for failing to prevent the spoliation, the court reasoned that ?it seems obvious that the party requesting sanctions has at least an initial burden of proof with respect to not only whether sanctionable conduct has occurred, but also with respect to whether the misbehaving party?s attorney may have been involved? and found Plaintiff?s assertions and evidence of such involvement ?too thin?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI