Motion for Sanctions – Page 53 – Electronic Discovery Law

Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park, No. 13-cv-03323-MMC (JCS), 2014 WL 2567914 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant?s duty to preserve arose upon threat of litigation and where he was reminded of the obligation in correspondence with opposing counsel and then ordered by the court to preserve, the court found that the level of culpability rose with each indication and thus found that the defendant had failed to preserve ESI in bad faith but, absent evidence of the level of resulting prejudice (attempts to recover the deleted data had not yet been undertaken), declined to impose a an adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trade secret, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on multiple devices

Crawford v. City of New London, No. 3:11CV1371 (JBA), 2014 WL 2168430 (D. Conn. May 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Spoliation sanctions were not appropriate where original footage on hard drive was recorded over in compliance with standard retention procedures, because: (1) defendants preserved a DVD copy of the video per standard practice, (2) plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the copy was of a lesser quality than the original, other than to allege that it was stored in a format that was inconvenient for enhancement, (3) defendants did not have control over the original security footage nor were they involved in its destruction, (4) recording over original footage occurred long before duty to preserve was triggered, and (5) there was no evidence beyond the fact of destruction itself that would support an inference that the original recording was unfavorable to defendants

Nature of Case: Excessive force claims in connection with plaintiff’s arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive containing original surveillance footage of plaintiff’s arrest

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-13-00027-CV, 2014 WL 4699136 (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court erred in granting remarkable discovery sanctions of procedural “death penalty” together with over $1 million in sanctions against plaintiffs, as destroyed evidence did not go to heart of case, but was, instead, impeachment evidence; record did not reflect the required consideration by trial court of appropriate lesser sanctions or an explanation of why case was exceptional and lesser sanctions would be inadequate; and court wrongly awarded attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and costs for the entire case rather than those related only to the sanctionable conduct

Nature of Case: Insurance dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Oleksy v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 6 C 1245, 2014 WL 3820352 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where, at time complaint was filed, defendant should have reasonably foreseen that files created by its accused process would be material to the parties’ claims, yet defendant continued to overwrite its files per its standard practice instead of saving the files either manually or automatically, court denied plaintiff’s request for adverse inference instruction but ordered defendant to reconstitute or recreate three complete sequences of old computer code at its own cost

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer code

Vicente v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC, 2014 WL 3894131 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Although court found City’s preservation efforts “plainly deficient,” as City did not notify its IT department to suspend automatic procedure for eliminating deleted emails after 30 days, nor did it instruct its IT department to assist key individuals in collecting and preserving relevant email or provide assistance in doing so from the legal department, court decline to impose case-dispositive sanctions against City because plaintiff did not discuss the bad faith standard nor show how it was satisfied, and loss of only one email did not constitute significant prejudice where plaintiff collected and presented good deal of evidence on same issue; court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of unredacted versions of two litigation hold letters sent by the City to its employees

Nature of Case: Fire Captain alleged claims of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and state law claims for defamation and injunctive relief

Electronic Data Involved: Email

UMG Recording, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 8407, 2014 WL 5089743 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions for Defendants? bad faith deletion of relevant records related to uploading infringing materials to its music distribution service despite a duty to preserve and found that Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law that certain defendants illegally uploaded infringing materials; for culpable spoliation of source code, including by failing to preserve relevant data stored on a backup server when the lease on that server expired, court found that defendants were precluded from raising one of their substantive defenses to plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, source code

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Ackerman v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 12-CV-42 (SNR/JSM), 2014 WL 258565 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court rejected plaintiff’s appeal of magistrate judge’s order denying sanctions, as there was no evidence that defendants destroyed evidence or inadequately investigated for ESI; fact that evidence was not produced “in and of itself is not a basis for [the court] to conclude that there was unlawful destruction or spoliation”

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stewart v. Nucor Corp., No. 3:13-cv-0057-KGB, 2014 WL 12611316 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs answer, enter default judgement and give an adverse inference jury instruction as sanctions for alleged spoliation of video footage. The court held that destruction of the footage was prejudicial to Plaintiff, being the only recording of the accident. Defendant did not have an official retention policy and indicated the video at issue was overwritten ?within weeks of the accident through routine system operation.? However the court did not find Defendant acted in bad faith, and thus denied with prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to strike Defendant?s answer and enter default judgement. The court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s request to strike the affirmative defense asserting Plaintiff?s fault as well as the request to prohibit Defendant from mentioning the tape/contents/employee statements regarding the tape during trial. Plaintiff may file a motion in limine to further pursue exclusion of evidence.

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA, 2014 WL 789086 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court sustained Microsoft’s objection to special master’s order granting adverse inference instruction in light of finding that Microsoft’s failure to preserve source code was negligent rather than willful or grossly negligent; a finding of bad faith is required in order for an adverse inference instruction to be appropriate

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Tag:Motion for Sanctions