Motion for Sanctions – Page 44 – Electronic Discovery Law

Spotted Horse v. BNSF Ry. Co., 350 P.3d 52 (Mont. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where district court abused its discretion when it declined to impose a meaningful sanction on railroad for allowing destruction of accident scene video footage during its pre-litigation investigation, the Court remanded for a new trial and ordered the district court to fashion a sanction that would satisfy the remedial and deterrent goals of sanctions for the spoliation of evidence, but the Court also said that district court?s refusal to grant injured machinist?s request for a default judgment as an evidentiary sanction for spoliation was not an abuse of discretion because it was not possible to know if the destruction was intentional or inadvertent

Nature of Case: Workplace injury

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video surveillance recording

Ballard v. Williams, No. 3:10-cv-01456, 2015 WL 179071 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where surveillance footage of hallway in which alleged assault occurred was overwritten, the court reasoned there was no indication that the evidence was intentionally lost or destroyed, that the named defendants were not responsible for the video system, and that defendant was not ?materially prejudiced? because he could still testify as to what happened and therefore denied the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Alleged assault by prison officers and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Malibu Media v. Ricupero, No. 2:14?cv?821 2015, 2015 WL 4273463 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions where plaintiff?s failure to preserve emails, and its failure to implement any uniform or centralized plan to preserve data or the various devices used by the key players in the transaction, demonstrated gross negligence which gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the spoliated documents were relevant, but plaintiff rebutted the presumption by demonstrating that the defenses available to defendant all necessarily turned on communications to or with them, not plaintiff?s internal communications.

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

AJ Holding Grp. v. IP Holdings, 129 A.D.3d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

S.E.C. v. CKB168 Holdings, Ltd., No. 13-CV-5584 (RRM), 2015 WL 4872553 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Rejecting defendants? explanation that their failure to preserve was the result of a vendor?s refusal to continue assistance for the reason of non-payment, the court found that defendants? had a duty to preserve the information stored on the corporate server that began ?well before the vendor stopped providing services? and reasoned that it was defendants? obligation to ?take ?all necessary steps to guarantee that relevant data was both preserved and produced,?? and also found that defendants were ?at a minimum grossly negligent? for failing to preserve relevant evidence where there was no evidence of efforts to preserve a readable copy of the corporate server nor evidence that they sought modification of the freeze on their assets in able to make payments to the vendor; magistrate judge recommended sanction of an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Securities and Exchange Commission investigation (SEC)

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of corporate server / “back office data”

F & J Samame, Inc. v. Arco Iris Ice Cream, SA?13?CV?365?XR, 2015 WL 4068575 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for attorneys? fees, where defendant had used software to wipe a PC and a laptop, deleting and overwriting more than 62,000 files, and violated a court order, and stalled the discovery process. Court denied in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions, however, instead granting leave for new depositions, saying that while its order ?does not address the loss of evidence that may establish willful infringement,? the alleged infringing materials ?are available for the jury to assess whether infringement has incurred or not.?

Nature of Case: Trade dress and Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and ESI on hard drive

Superior Performers Inc. v. Meaike, No. 1:13CV1149, 2015 WL 471429 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s agent deleted an original voicemail from his phone by way of a factory reset but had produced a copy and also claimed to have transferred the voicemail to his new phone and where Defendants sought sanctions and argued that the deletion would prevent them from showing the voicemail was fabricated, as they suspected, the court declined to impose sanctions for the alleged fabrication, despite evidence the presentation of evidence that could lead to that conclusion, but did order that Plaintiff be prevented from using the voicemail at trial as a sanction for spoliation, reasoning that although the voicemail was not on one of Plaintiff?s phones (but rather on its agent?s), it ?likely? had a duty to preserve the evidence and that Plaintiff did not attempt to provide access to the phone or provide notice of the voicemail?s possible destruction

Nature of Case: Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants

Electronic Data Involved: Voicemail

Flanders v. Dzugan, No. 12-1481, 2015 WL 5022734 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions, despite Defendant?s failure to issue a litigation hold, where Plaintiff could not show that evidence was actually lost or destroyed and where, although the court acknowledged that Defendant?s record keeping appeared ?slipshod,? Plaintiff could not show bad faith (?in no case in the Third Circuit cited by Plaintiff, or found by this Court, has a court granted a spoliation inference on nothing more than a failure to institute a litigation hold?)

Nature of Case: [A]lleged constitutional violations arising out of the building permit approval process

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

H.M. Elecs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12cv28840-BAS-MDD, 2015 WL 4714908 (S.D. cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: For multiple discovery violations by Defendant and counsel, including improper certification of discovery responses pursuant to Rule 26(g), failure to issue a litigation hold or appropriately supervise discovery, and intentional deletion of responsive materials and delayed production, the court imposed multiple discovery sanctions, including attorneys? fees and costs, issue sanctions, and an adverse inference; notably, the court indicated sanctions would have been imposed under New Rule 37(e), because the court found that the at-issue ESI was lost with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the information?s use in the litigation; Update: Compensatory sanctions vacated by District Court upon determination that parties? settlement mooted the issue of compensatory sanctions (—F.Supp.3d—, 2016 WL 1267385 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016))

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, trade libel, unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions