Motion for Sanctions – Page 75 – Electronic Discovery Law

Estate of Wilson v. Addison, 258 P.3d 410 (Mont. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where medical facility destroyed medication records in accordance with its records-retention policy, despite a pending claim, but where the destruction was in not bad faith or an attempt to shield plaintiff from the truth and where there was no showing of prejudice, District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff?s request for sanctions

Nature of Case: Medical Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Medication Records

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d.—, 2011 WL 6879746 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where the general manager of the defendant Red Roof Inn claimed to have attempted to preserve video surveillance footage by asking for it to be copied but alleged that she later discovered that the footage was not copied and that the original footage had been automatically recorded over by that time, the court found, ?based on overwhelming evidence of Red Roof?s cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations,? that defendant?s spoliation was grossly negligent and ordered an adverse inference and that defendant pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with the preparation for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Unlawful detention and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Zarwasch-Weiss v. SKF Economos USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv1327, 1:10-cv-1548, 2011 WL 4628745 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Silverman v. United States, 2011 WL 65487 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy the form at issue was subject to retention until February 4, 2007, and where defendant provided notice of his claims on February 1, 2007, including his assertions of defendant?s negligence, court found destruction of the relevant form warranted an adverse inference establishing that defendant negligently loaded the trailer involved in the underlying accident

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McCargo v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., No. 09-cv-02889-WYD-KMT, 2011 WL 1638992 (D. Colo. May 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where willful, bad faith spoliation of relevant video tapes despite a duty to preserve (triggered by an internal complaint of harassment and receipt of two preservation requests from plaintiff) resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference allowing (but not requiring) the jury to infer that certain tapes would have been harmful to defendant, an order precluding defendant from the introduction of certain evidence, and a prohibition on cross examination of plaintiff?s witnesses as to certain topics

Nature of Case: Racial discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Vieste v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-0424 JSW (MSR), 2011 WL 2198257 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to pay sanctions equal to ?reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred [by Plaintiffs] in bringing this motion? where defendants were ordered to provide a detailed explanation of their preservation and collection processes but instead submitted declarations which failed to answer basic questions, answered others with minimal information, and relied on conclusory statements; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, despite the court?s ?serious concerns? about a certain custodian?s preservation and collection efforts, spoliation was not established, and as to other specific evidence for which the evidence of spoliation was not clear, ordered that if it had not previously been produced, defendants would be barred from its use

Nature of Case: Brach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634249 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2011); Flagg v. City of Detroit, No. 05-74253, 2011 WL 4634245 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For the City of Detroit?s bad faith spoliation of emails, the court declined to impose terminating sanctions but imposed a permissive adverse inference; for the City?s and its attorneys? ?bad faith disregard of their discovery obligations and the orders of this Court? which led to the destruction of evidence (including failing to disseminate a legal hold notice and Corporation Counsel?s ?utter delinquen[ce] in his duty to see that his clients complied with Judge Rosen?s orders?), the court ordered the city and Corporation Counsel to split plaintiffs? reasonable fees and costs; in its analysis related to an adverse inference, the court adopted the analysis of Forest Labs. Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009), which held that an adverse inference may be appropriate in some cases involving the negligent destruction of evidence (as opposed to bad faith, which some courts have held is necessary)

Nature of Case: Minor son of murder victim alleged that defendants conducted lax investigation and deliberately ignored or actively concealed material evidence

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Xyience, Inc. v. Zyen, LLC (In re Xyience), Ch. 11 Case No. BK-S-08-10474-MKN, Adv. No. 09-1402-MKN, 2011 WL 5239666 (Bankr. D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For ?discovery misconduct? including failing to issue a litigation hold; admitted deletion of documents; and failure to promptly search certain repositories for responsive information, including a computer utilized by an individual defendant at an unrelated corporation for which he was an officer (but which he used for matters unrelated to that corporation, including for correspondence related to the underlying lawsuits) and the computer of the same individual?s secretary (albeit at yet a third company which was also a defendant), the court ordered monetary sanctions ?to reimburse Plaintiff?s expenses costs, and reasonable attorney?s fees?

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a store employee attempted to copy the relevant surveillance footage but was unsuccessful and where the failure was not discovered until after the tape had been overwritten, the court found defendant?s loss of the relevant footage was negligent and imposed an adverse inference that the lost footage would have been unfavorable to the defendant

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Roth v. Sloan, No. 1:08 CV 1656, 2011 WL 1298498 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Tag:Motion for Sanctions