Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: Court noted 2d circuit?s rejection of premise that failure to issue a litigation hold constitutes gross negligence and declined to impose an adverse inference but did impose monetary sanctions for individual?s failure to preserve her own handwritten notes upon finding that she acted in a negligent manner in preserving those notes; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions against ?Roosevelt Defendants? (the District and the Board) for failure to preserve audio tapes that were contaminated with lead and asbestos while in storage and thus discarded ?through no fault? of the Defendants and imposed no sanctions for late production of relevant information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, handwritten notes, miscellaneous

Key Insight: Where plaintiff recycled the at-issue computer after being notified that Allstate disputed the effective date of her cancellation (which may have been discernible from examination of the computer) but before it was formally requested in discovery (almost two years later), court questioned whether a lay person would have known to keep her computer because of potential litigation when the computer was not the subject of her claim and declined to dismiss her claims but indicated that it would entertain further motions practice on the issue closer to trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, bad faith

Electronic Data Involved: Personal Computer

Key Insight: Court did not err in denying plaintiff?s request for a spoliation instruction with respect to digital pictures taken of plaintiff which were deleted when a defendant (a police officer) connected the camera to his computer for uploading where there was no evidence ? to prove, or even suggest? that the officer intended to destroy the pictures and where ?a culpable state of mind? was a necessary element to be proven by a party seeking such sanctions

Nature of Case: Claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photos

Key Insight: Where District Court held that because defendant, a prison guard, did not have control over the preservation of relevant surveillance footage there was no basis to establish his culpability for its loss and thus spoliation sanctions were not warranted, the appellate court acknowledged that other circuits had imposed sanctions for a prison?s loss of relevant footage but determined the case law did not require a finding of negligence for such loss and that, even if the appellate court were to disagree with the District Court?s determination, the conclusion was not ?clearly erroneous?; court spoke to concerns that this would provide carte blanche for prisons? destruction of such footage, but found that imposing a burden upon individual defendant?s to ensure that their employer (the prison) was preserving evidentiary records for every incident with a prisoner was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Action brought by prisoner for injury allegedly inflicted by prison guard

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Key Insight: Where a major question in the case was what defendant?s hard drive contained at the time it was returned to him and where defendant sent that hard drive to the manufacturer and received a replacement during a time when he was ?on notice? that the information may be relevant to future litigation, the court found that defendant was at least negligent in his handling of the drive and imposed an adverse inference which allowed the assumption that the drive contained the at-issue intellectual property at the time it was returned by the plaintiff to the police

Nature of Case: Action to collect reward offered for return of laptop and its contents

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive