Motion for Sanctions – Page 58 – Electronic Discovery Law

Simms v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc., 2013 WL 49756 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case

Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Hixson v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-00871-RCJ-PAL, 2013 WL 3677203 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: No sanctions for Defendant?s failure to produce a particular relevant email where the email was subject to Defendant?s automatic deletion policy and where the court ?was satisfied? that the email was in fact automatically deleted before Defendant was on notice that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Hostile Work Environment

Electronic Data Involved: Email subject to automatic deletion policy

EEOC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 295 F.R.D. 166 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Defendant’s failure to establish a litigation hold and resulting loss of relevant data through routine purge was inexcusable and presented exceptional circumstances that removed such conduct from the protections provided by Rule 37(c); as sanction, court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment which turned in part on skill login data, and would give permissive adverse inference instruction regarding the destroyed evidence at trial

Nature of Case: Sex discrimination claims

Electronic Data Involved: Skill login data

Clay v. Consol Penn. Coal Co., No. 5:12CV92, 2013 WL 4854746 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants were dilatory in participating in discovery and did not begin searching for ESI until plaintiff was on the brink of filing his second motion to compel, district court affirmed magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for default judgment be denied because there was no showing of bad faith on the part of defendants and prejudice to plaintiff could be alleviated through imposition of less drastic sanctions, such as allowing plaintiff to re-depose certain witnesses at defense expense, allowing plaintiff to exceed the deposition limit, and awarding plaintiff reasonable expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of the motion

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Master Hand Contractors, Inc. v. Convent of the Sacred Heart of Chicago, No. 1-12-3788, 2013 WL 5940641 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in dismissing mechanics lien case with prejudice as sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with its discovery obligations for approximately 18 months and its violations of seven orders of the court, including three expressly final deadlines to produce electronic discovery materials, as the trial court applied progressive discipline to coerce compliance and gave plaintiff ample opportunities to escape possible discovery sanctions; appellate court criticized plaintiff?s approach to the ESI request, ?under which the company owner — who called himself a ?computer idiot? in open court — self-selected emails relating to the Sacred Heart project instead of using a search tool to find them, and printed them out one at a time, all without supervision of counsel.?

Nature of Case: School building construction litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

Fairview Ritz Corp. v. Borough of Fairview, No. 09-875 (JLL), 2013 WL 5435060 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon motion for reconsideration based on Plaintiff?s location and production of a document previously found to have been spoliated, court found that an adverse inference and monetary sanctions predicated on the finding of spoliation were no longer appropriate but ordered Plaintiff?s counsel to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for the delay and Defendants? protracted efforts to procure the document?s production

Electronic Data Involved: Single document (ESI)

Slovin v. Target Corp., No. 12 CV 863(HB), 2013 WL 840865 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found Target was at least grossly negligent for failing to preserve all portions of relevant surveillance footage (capturing Plaintiff?s fall and the surrounding circumstances) and thus imposed an adverse inference and monetary sanctions, but declined to strike Target?s answer or preclude use of the at-issue video excerpts and photographs

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Gilley v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 3:10-CV-251, 2013 WL 1701066 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to preserve digital images which she claimed she took with her cell phone and her daughter?s cell phone and which she claimed to have received from her daughter via email and later forwarded to her attorney (resulting in several electronic copies of the image(s)), the court found that plaintiff had the obligation to preserve the evidence, that she knew or should have known that the images were relevant, that the images and metadata were in fact relevant, and that sanctions were appropriate and thus imposed a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Digital images

Jackson v. Target Corp., No. 12-12190, 2013 WL 3771354 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant preserved a portion of the relevant surveillance video following Plaintiff?s fall but, upon being ordered to preserve substantially more, could not comply because the video had been automatically overwritten by that time and could not be recovered, the court declined to impose an adverse inference absent evidence of a culpable mindset

Nature of Case: Premises liability (slip and fall)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Anderson v. Sullivan, No. 1:07-cv-111-SJM, 2013 WL 4455602 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: After granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants, court retained ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; court conducted seven-day evidentiary hearing on the motion, ultimately rejecting plaintiff’s various claims of spoliation

Nature of Case: Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, computer hard drives

Tag:Motion for Sanctions