Motion for Sanctions – Page 72 – Electronic Discovery Law

Suntrust Mortg., Inc. v. AIG United Guaranty Corp., No. 3:09cv529, 2011 WL 1225989 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

F.T.C. v. Asia Pac. Telecom, Inc., No. 10 C 3168, 2011 WL 2110220 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Buonauro v. City of Berwyn, No. 08 C 6687, 2011 WL 3754820 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Vibra-Tech Eng?rs, Inc. v. Kavalek, No. 08-2646 (JEI/AMD), 2011 WL 6755194 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Miller v. City of Plymouth, No. 2:09-CV-205 JVB, 2011 WL 1458419 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. JFS Dev., Inc., No. C09-0175, 2011 WL 4499259 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Melendres v. Arpaio, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 6740709 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Makeen v. Comcast of Colo. X, LLC, 2011 WL 93728 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s loss of server logs where the court determined that the logs were of minimal relevance to plaintiff?s claims and where the logs ?rolled over? in the usual course of business prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA and ADA, employment discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Server logs

Papadoplos v. Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC, 21 A.3d 1216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed sanction of dismissal of plaintiffs? claims for spoliation where plaintiff was found to have undertaken ?knowing and willful? spoliation of ?pertinent? evidence resulting in prejudice to the defendant by destroying relevant hard drives

Nature of Case: Legal Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Greene v. Netsmart Techs., No. CV 08-4971(TCP)(AKT), 2011 WL 2225004 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where there was a delay in plaintiff?s production of relevant evidence and where handwritten notes and certain audio tapes were negligently destroyed but where no unique evidence was ultimately lost because the information was transferred to another source before its destruction, court declined to dismiss the case or to impose an adverse inference but, noting that there was ?clearly a breakdown in communication between Plaintiff and his counsel regarding document preservation and collection,? imposed monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s expenses related to efforts to obtain the relevant evidence, to be shared 50/50 by plaintiff and his counsel; Recommendation adopted by the District Court: 2011 WL 2193399

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Tapes, handwritten notes

Tag:Motion for Sanctions