Motion for Sanctions – Page 53 – Electronic Discovery Law

Duluc v. AC & L Good Corp., 990 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court affirmed denial of motion for sanctions where defendant preserved 84 seconds of surveillance footage in response a request to preserve footage or photos that ?depict the subject slip and fall accident? and where the remainder of the footage had been automatically overwritten before plaintiff requested broader preservation; court reasoned that: ?While it may have been a better practice to preserve any footage of the area from any camera for a period before and after the accident, that was not the request made to defendants, and it would unfair to defendant to penalize it for not anticipating plaintiff’s additional requests.?

Nature of Case: Personal injury / slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Connelly v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., No. 12-2660, 2014 WL 2003093 (E.D. La. May 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, at point in time at which surveillance videotape was overridden pursuant to VA’s 30-day retention policy, VA was on notice that the surveillance tape was relevant to litigation; plaintiff also failed to show any bad faith with respect to the alleged destruction of video surveillance

Nature of Case: Federal Tort Claims Act claim for slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video footage

EEOC v. Suntrust Bank, No. 8:12-cv-1325-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 1364982 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice EEOC?s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, indicating it may consider this ruling at a later date if presented with further evidence tending to show bad faith conduct by SunTrust; court would permit the EEOC to introduce evidence at trial concerning SunTrust?s video surveillance system, SunTrust?s policies relating to use and preservation of video surveillance footage, and SunTrust?s failure to preserve video footage at issue, where Suntrust isolated and carefully reviewed tapes to investigate (and partly validate) one plaintiff?s claims, but then put that same footage back into circulation to be taped over and did not retain or preserve the footage

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage from bank’s security cameras

Kinsler v. City of Philadelphia, No. 13-6412, 2014 WL 3964925 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on police department’s loss of cell phone video, as the video did not capture any interaction between plaintiff and the two police officers and it was unclear how the video could be relevant to plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff possessed a second video that did capture the events of the night in question and therefore plaintiff was not prejudiced by loss of the cell phone video, and there was no evidence that the two officers (the only remaining defendants in the case) were ever in possession or control of the cell phone video or responsible for its destruction

Nature of Case: Claims for excessive force and malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone video recorded by a witness to the events, 15-30 seconds in duration, which was uploaded onto a Philadelphia Police Department computer and subsequently lost

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 331 P.3d 876 (Nev. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Nevada Supreme Court declined to intervene in discovery dispute scheduled for hearing by district court, concluding that the mere presence of a foreign international privacy statute did not itself preclude Nevada district courts from ordering litigants to comply with Nevada discovery rules — rather, the existence of such a statute would become relevant to the district court?s sanctions analysis in the event the discovery order was disobeyed; since district court had indicated it would balance defendant’s desire to comply with the privacy statute with other factors at the yet-to-be-held sanctions hearing, defendant failed to demonstrate that district court had exceeded its jurisdiction or exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously and extraordinary relief was not warranted

Nature of Case: President and CEO of corporation brought action against foreign corporation alleging violation of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents on hard drives, coipes of email

Taylor v. Shippers Transp. Express Inc., No. CV 13-02092 BRO (PLAx), 2014 WL 12560879 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including an adverse inference and possible evidence preclusion (TBD after recovery efforts were exhausted), where Defendant failed to preserve its employees? text messages, including highly relevant text messages, by failing to implement a litigation hold and where despite Defendant?s attempts to recover the deleted information, the court deemed it ?very unlikely? that such efforts would result in full production; court also reasoned that even if all missing documents were produced, Plaintiffs would still be prejudiced in light of less time to review the evidence and prepare for trial

Nature of Case: Class action employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages, ESI

Helget v. City of Hays, No. 13-2228-KHV-KGG, 2014 WL 1308893 (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant put ESI at issue by stating that plaintiff was fired, in part, for improper, personal use of the city’s computers, ESI relating to computer usage by plaintiff and certain others was relevant and city should have placed litigation hold on plaintiff’s immediate coworkers, those holding similar positions within the city, and the identified “key players”; court ordered city to bear the cost of forensic restoration

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: E-mail, internet usage logs, and other ESI

Quintero Cmty. Assoc. v. Hillcrest Bank, No. 04-11-CV-00893-DGK, 2014 WL 1764791 (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants produced ESI that had previously been provided to the FDIC in the course of its investigation but could not provide the passwords to access the information and where the requesting party was told by “several companies” that the documents would be ?nearly impossible? to unencrypt, the court declined to impose spoliation sanctions reasoning that ?a presumption of spoliation only arises when there is evidence of ?intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth?? and that the requesting party had not shown intentional destruction (?QCA has not provided the court with sufficient evidence that Defendants, or their attorneys, placed the passwords on the discs, let alone evidence that these actors did so to intentionally block QCA’s access.?)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed property investment

Electronic Data Involved: Password protected ESI

In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to impose sanctions against wireless carrier for employee’s deletion of particular email that referenced collusion, notwithstanding that deletion was intentional and done for the purpose of concealing the contents of the email, because record did not reflect that author of deleted email was in a position to have knowledge of or participate in any collusion between the wireless carriers, and thus plaintiffs could not show that missing email would have been adverse to wireless carrier

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Motion for Sanctions