Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant?s automatic purge of contents from a relevant website following closure of bidding process, court found defendant was on notice of obligation to preserve by virtue of Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring preservation of ?all the contract documents associated with procurement,? that the United States had been negligent in failing to preserve the information, and that plaintiff was prejudiced and, focusing on the need to impose the least harsh sanction, ordered that defendant would be prohibited from relying upon any secondary evidence regarding what Plaintiff saw on the relevant website (the question of what Plaintiff saw on the website and therefore what Plaintiff knew was a major issue in the case)

Nature of Case: Pre-award bid protest

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of website used to submit bids

Key Insight: Where defendant?s breached their duty to preserve by discarding a hard drive belonging to defendant in the midst of discovery and where their ?story? of what happened to the drive (including claims that it was taken to the Apple Store for repairs) did not ?add up?, the district court found the magistrate judge?s failure to find that defendant?s acted in bad faith ?clearly erroneous? and that a finding of bad faith would allow prejudice to be presumed such that allowing but not requiring the jury draw a negative inference was ?insufficient;? as a sanction, the district court ordered that defendants obtain all relevant emails from their email service providers and precluded defendants from using as evidence any of the documents culled from the drive ?before they destroyed it?

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that the accused spoliator had custody and control of the allegedly spoliated audiotape and where the plaintiff was not prejudiced in light of his receipt of a transcript of the tape

Nature of Case: Witness intimidation, retaliation, defamation or false-light invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Key Insight: Plaintiff argued that Department of Justice had destroyed records in violation of Federal Records Act but court clarified that Federal Records Act rather requires agencies to decide which materials must be preserved and reasoned that where DOJ decided not to require preservation of notes related to employment candidates and thus such information was destroyed, no spoliation could be found where the destruction was in accordance with policy and occurred prior to initiation of the relevant investigation and the subsequent lawsuit

Nature of Case: Claims alleging wrongful employment decisions based on political affiliation

Electronic Data Involved: Notes taken regarding applicants

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiff?s alleged deletion of relevant ESI upon finding that because plaintiff would not have known of the relevance of information in the identified custodians? custody at the time ESI was lost, there was no duty to preserve and thus no spoliation; as to ESI alleged to have been deleted while a duty to preserve existed, the court denied sanctions absent evidence of relevance or that defendant was prejudiced by the alleged loss

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of business information, conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly spoliated emails and where, if the emails had existed, they would have been automatically deleted prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve and thus would not have been lost in bad faith; court?s analysis included discussion of trigger of duty to preserve and reasoned that meetings between accused professor and his department head and/or program director regarding alleged unwanted interactions with student did not trigger university?s duty to preserve because there was no evidence to suggest that either the department head or program director should have reasonably anticipated litigation at that time (citing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 for proposition that ?Merely because one or two employees contemplate the possibility that a fellow employee might sue does not generally impose a firm wide duty to-preserve.?)

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails