Key Insight: Where Defendant unintentionally lost text messages when his service provider failed to transfer those text messages to his new phone?despite his request to transfer ?everything??and where the texts were later recovered by a forensic analysist, court declined to impose ?punitive sanctions? and ordered Defendant to pay the cost of retrieving the messages
Electronic Data Involved: Text messages (WhatsApp)
Key Insight: Videotape of collision filmed from train was admissible, despite inability of defendant to produce the hard drive from which it originally was copied, where both eyewitness testimony which corroborated the footage and chain of custody evidence established its authenticity; no spoliation sanctions for reuse of hard drive where such reuse was a ?routine practice? for defendant and because plaintiff could not establish prejudice resulting from the loss of the hard drive (the video was available)
Nature of Case: Personal injury (train/car collision)
Electronic Data Involved: Original hard drive containing video footage
Key Insight: Court ordered dismissal of Plaintiff?s claims with prejudice and payment of Defendant?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred for numerous discovery motions and forensic inspection of Plaintiff?s electronic devices for Plaintiff?s bad faith spoliation including defiance of the court?s discovery orders by refusing to submit certain devices and accounts for forensic inspection and by refusing to produce certain information and the destruction of ESI by wiping both his iPhone and Blackberry device, among other things
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (harassment, retaliation)
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic inspection of devices (iPhone, Blackberry)and accounts
Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on union’s failure to preserve evidence, noting that union appeared to have been diligent in trying to gather up relevant documents once litigation commenced, there was no way to determine when the missing records were destroyed, and union was autonomous organization and none of the existing plaintiffs shouldered any blame for the union’s negligence
Nature of Case: Class action regarding defendant’s obligation to restore certain retiree healthcare benefits
Electronic Data Involved: E-mail and other ESI
Key Insight: District court judge overruled plaintiff’s objection to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which found spoliation by defendant in not preserving consul’s mobile phone given that defense counsel knew or should have known that the phone was relevant to the pending litigation, but declined to impose sanctions because there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to plaintiff and plaintiff had failed to pursue opportunities to obtain the information through other methods
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Laptop; text messages and other ESI on mobile phone
Key Insight: Where defendants cooperated with Vermont Department of Liquor Control investigation and with their insurer and supplied records to the apparent satisfaction of both, and produced facially complete 62-page check detail, but failed to preserve the original ESI after filing for bankruptcy and closing business, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse inference instruction since failure to preserve was not deliberate or in bad faith and plaintiffs’ claimed prejudice was based on conjecture; however, because plaintiffs were prejudiced to the extent they could not explore possibility of fabrication or tampering with printout of check details, court would allow evidence of destruction of ESI in its original format to be admitted at trial
Nature of Case: Dram Shop Act and common law claims alleging that defendants’ sale of beer to individual caused head-on collision between individual’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on restaurant’s computers in its original format
Key Insight: Notwithstanding that litigation hold was not put into place until more than four years after complaint was filed, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that defendant deleted any documents or evidence, or acted with an intent to conceal or destroy evidence, there was no evidence that defendant routinely exchanged email correspondence about plaintiff with others, and the vigorous work of plaintiff?s appointed counsel led to only one responsive email being produced; plaintiff would be allowed to question defendant at trial about her failure to timely impose a litigation hold and about other matters related to plaintiff?s assertion that she must have had relevant email communications that no longer exist
Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner civil rights claims
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where hard copy closing file itself was destroyed, but defendants electronically preserved the closing file in two different storage systems, FileStor and SureClose, appellate court found that trial court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions
Nature of Case: Real estate dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Closing file, title commitment
Key Insight: Despite defendants? claims that litigation regarding claims of bladder cancer were not reasonably foreseeable until 2011, and thus the preservation obligation did not attach as to evidence related to those claims, the court found that the duty to preserve began in 2002, when defendants disseminated a broad and general litigation hold requiring the preservation of documents and ESI which ?discuss, mention, or relate to Actos? and that documents destroyed after that (including the files of 46 employees) were spoliated; court ordered that the jury would hear about the destruction and be instructed by the court on how to proceed (instruction would be crafted after hearing all the evidence)
Nature of Case: Products Liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (46 “custodial files”)
Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s complaints regarding format of defendant’s production of documents, because plaintiff failed to make any Rule 34(b)(2)(B) ESI specification in its discovery requests and defendant’s production of scanned images on OCR readable disc was a reasonably usable form; court ordered defendant to explain its document naming and numbering system to the extent it had not already done so, but denied any additional logistical relief, stating: ?Whatever burden XL and its counsel face in reviewing these materials that they themselves have requested is rightfully borne by them.?
Nature of Case: Insurance coverage
Electronic Data Involved: Database of more than 808,000 documents consisting of more than four million pages
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.