Motion for Sanctions – Page 68 – Electronic Discovery Law

Simon Prop. Gourp, Inc. v. Lauria, No. 6:11-cv-01598-Orl-31KRS, 2012 WL 6859404 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant threw laptop containing relevant evidence into the river following specific notice of her obligation to preserve and admitted her intent to destroy evidence, the court recommended entry of default judgment and that Defendant be required to pay Plaintiff?s reasonably attorneys? fees and costs incurred as a result of the spoliation

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

In re Specs, No. C 10-04250 YGR (DMR), 2012 WL 4120246 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court ordered sanctions for Plaintiffs? violation of a court order compelling production where Plaintiffs certified their production was complete and thereafter made at least four additional significant productions such that the court concluded that Plaintiffs? certification of completeness was either ?knowingly false, or ? made without confirming the adequacy of their collection and production efforts? and ordered payment of reasonable expenses including attorneys fees and that Plaintiffs file certification that their discovery is complete and that any documents produced thereafter could not be used by Plaintiff at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fatpipe Networks India, Ltd. v. Xroads Networks, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-186 TC DN, 2012 WL 192792 (D. Utah Jan. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed infringement based on alleged testing of defendant?s devices but claimed that no testing documentation was created and where, upon a neutral third party?s examination of the relevant devices, it was revealed that two key logs were missing expected messages and reflected abnormal device behaviors that plaintiff was unable to explain, the court held that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff?s failure to protect and preserve the logs and the resulting inability to verify purported testing and thus ordered that all evidence of plaintiff?s testing of the devices would be precluded from introduction to the record or other use and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant?s expenses associated with the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Log messages, evidence of testing

Earl v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-03137-JMC, 2012 WL 1458185 (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant documents were discovered upon forensic examination of a relevant hard drive and evidence indicated they had been modified, but not what the modifications were, the court reasoned that the documents had not been destroyed (because they were discovered on the hard drive) and that Plaintiffs did not dispute Defendant?s argument that the modifications could have been the result of merely saving the documents?without making other alterations?and thus declined to grant plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Linnebur v. United Telephone Assoc., Inc., No. 10-1379-RDR, 2012 WL 2370110 (D. Kan. June 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff was able to establish that defendant destroyed ESI while under a duty to preserve but was unable to establish that she was actually prejudiced by the loss, the court denied Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions without prejudice and, noting that it was ?troubled? by Defendant?s preservation failures and counsel?s apparent failure to oversee his client?s discovery efforts, the court sua sponte reopened discovery solely as to the issue of spoliation

Nature of Case: Unlawful termination under Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

St. Louis Produce Mkt. v. Hughes, No. 4:09CV1912 RWS, 2012 WL 4378194 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In a case where defendant tried to ?pull a fast one? by altering material terms to a contract and inducing plaintiff to sign it, defendant sought but was repeatedly unable to procure production of defendant?s laptop — which it suspected was used to alter the contract — and when the laptop was produced, it had been substantially damaged. Moreover, evidence indicated that defendant had destroyed relevant cell phone records and emails and that defendant?s counsel made repeated misrepresentations to the court. Thus, the court struck defendant?s pleadings as a sanction.

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment that contract was invalid because procured by fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Tandem Indus., 485 Fed. Appx. 516 (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering Defendant?s argument for an adverse inference where his former employer failed to produce his former work laptop and files, the court noted that the ?undisputed evidence show[ed] that Colgate destroyed the data on the laptop shortly after Flower?s retirement,? and concluded that: ?When data is destroyed pursuant to normal recordkeeping practices (and in particular when it is destroyed in relation to a major event like an employee?s retirement), no adverse inference is warranted.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and its files

FTC v. Lights of America, Inc., No. SACV 10-1333 (JVS) (MLGx), 2012 WL 695008 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held plaintiff was not obligated to issue a litigation hold at the beginning of its full-phase investigation or upon the issuance of a CID because litigation was not reasonably foreseeable at those times, noting that the duty to preserve attaches when litigation is probable, which means ?more than a possibility?; court declined to order sanctions related to plaintiff?s auto-delete policy where the policy called for the preservation of relevant ESI and the deletion of duplicates and indicated that even if the policy resulted in the inadvertent loss of email, there was no evidence of bad faith, and cited Rule 37(e) re: safe harbor; court declined to impose sanctions for failure to issue a litigation hold over documents not in the plaintiff?s possession or control

Nature of Case: Government investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rudolph v. Beacon Indep. Living, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-617-FDW-DSC, 2012 WL 2804114 (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where it was undisputed that Defendant instructed a non-party witness to delete relevant emails on his computer and that the non-party complied, court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions and ordered that defendant and the non-party preserve all ESI going forward, that defendant and the non-party submit their computers for forensic examination to recover deleted emails and to gather native format versions of information previously produced ?as fixed images,? that defendant pay the cost of the forensic examinations, and that defendant bear plaintiffs? attorneys costs and fees for preparing the underlying motion

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ?Deepwater Horizon? In the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179, 2012 WL 174645 (E.D. La. Jan. 20. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied BP?s motion for spoliation sanctions for Halliburton?s alleged loss of information concerning ?post incident cement testing? where BP had not demonstrated prejudice and, upon Halliburton?s representation that the modeling was done on a particular computer that it would submit for third-party forensic examination to determine if the modeling could be located, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop a protocol for examination with costs to be shared equally and reserved BP?s right to seek additional relief

Nature of Case: Claims arising from oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Computer modeling data/results

Tag:Motion for Sanctions