Key Insight: Award of attorney?s fees for investigation into possibility of spoliation where defendant failed to institute a litigation hold was proper, even where no spoliation was established, because the ?non-breaching party still has suffered damages in the context of attorneys? fees and costs? as a result of the need to perform the investigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for defendant?s loss of potentially relevant video surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to articulate how the tape would depict anything not already represented in available still photos and thus did not establish that the tape was sufficiently relevant to warrant the requested sanction; court ordered plaintiff was entitled to attorneys? fees and costs for the motion and for her efforts to determine whether the accident had been recorded
Nature of Case: Slip and Fall
Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape
Key Insight: For fraud on the court (attributed to plaintiff as the result of employee?s alteration of emails) and for abuse of the litigation process (resulting from in-house counsel and management?s failure to adequately investigate the existence of other altered emails and subsequent reliance on one such altered email in the filing of their first complaint), court ordered plaintiff to pay attorneys? fees and costs associated with defendant?s sanctions motion but denied the request for additional sanctions, including dismissal, adverse jury instructions, and issue preclusion
Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract
Electronic Data Involved: Altered emails
Key Insight: Court found defendants in contempt and, in the alternative, invoked its inherent authority to sanction where defendants were found to have deactivated a relevant Yahoo! email account in violation of a temporary restraining order which caused the information therein to be permanently lost and where the court found that the deactivation was in bad faith and resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff; court declined to impose default judgment but ordered adverse inferences which substantially eased plaintiff?s ability to establish liability
Nature of Case: Violations of National Do Not Call Registry
Electronic Data Involved: Web based emails
Key Insight: Where defendant destroyed relevant audio recordings of City Council meetings despite anticipation of litigation but argued that the destruction was allowed under state law (which controlled the relevant retention period for such recordings), among other things, the court found that the tapes had been destroyed ?with a reckless disregard? of the duty to preserve which constituted bad faith and ordered an adverse inference establishing that if the tapes were available, they would have contained evidence favorable to the plaintiff
Nature of Case: Land Use/Zoning
Electronic Data Involved: Recordings of City Council meetings
Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions absent evidence of fraud or bad faith and where the court did not find sufficient evidence of prejudice
Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court upheld ruling that defendants did not destroy video evidence thereby warranting sanctions where plaintiff sought police recordings starting in 2004, but where no retention policy existed during that time period except officers? discretion to retain recording and many of the requested recordings had been recorded over long before plaintiffs? traffic stop; where the relevant officer was not asked to save tape of certain traffic stops until 2010; where plaintiffs? accusations of spoliation assumed that relevant video existed and ?overlooked the significant trouble Defendants have experienced in operating and maintaining their digital systems;? and where defendants had no control over the fact that the systems hard drive recorded over old data
Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic stop
Electronic Data Involved: Video
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs alleged that examination of defendant?s laptop and other storage devices revealed evidence of spoliation and filed a motion for default judgment, the court reasoned that the evidence did not support a finding of intentional spoliation or bad faith, that the risk of prejudice to plaintiffs was small, that there was plenty of information for plaintiffs to utilize to pursue their claims, that public policy favored disposition on the merits, and that a less drastic sanction was available (namely a possible adverse inference instruction), and denied plaintiffs? motion; the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge was adopted by the District Court 2011 WL 5975127
Nature of Case: Claim for damages arising from property development
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and imposed permissive adverse inferences as to two categories of information which the court found had been intentionally shredded and/or deleted despite a duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Civil rights class action
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: In three separate instances, court concluded plaintiff deliberately destroyed or failed to produce relevant electronic devices and documents; culpably contributed to the destruction of a relevant hard drive; and deliberately destroyed relevant financial information and ordered repayment of plaintiff?s attorneys? fees and costs related to the adjudication of their motions for sanctions and repayment of attorneys? fees and costs related to plaintiffs construction of evidence of relevant financial information, made much more difficult by defendant?s spoliation
Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract and related claims and cross claims related to theft and use of confidential information
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.