Motion for Sanctions – Page 75 – Electronic Discovery Law

Jacobeit v. Rich Township H.S. Dist. 227, No. 09 CV 1924, 2011 WL 2039588 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: For defendant?s delayed production of certain relevant documents, including emails, court granted plaintiff permission to re-depose certain witnesses but denied his request for evidentiary and exclusionary sanctions; court found defendant had breached its duty to preserve when it destroyed an audio tape of school board meeting pursuant to the District?s normal retention policy but that culpability and prejudice were not significant and ordered that plaintiff be allowed to question a certain deponent regarding the meeting, but no other sanctions; court found defendants breached duty of preservation as to certain emails, but that prejudice was minimal, and declined to allow forensic examination of the District?s computers, but ordered that defendants bear the reasonable costs of plaintiff?s motion and reply

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, audio tape of board meeting

English v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00080-ECR-VPC, 2011 WL 3496092 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of surveillance tape where duty to preserve arose upon request for the evidence-three months after the fall occurred- and where plaintiff did not show that defendant destroyed or lost the video and photographs with ?culpable intent or in a negligent and possibly reckless manner after Defendant?s duty to preserve the evidence arose.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Veolia Transp. Servs. v. Evanson, No. CV-10-01392-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5909917 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, prior to being named a party to the action, defendant failed to preserve ESI (including failing to pay a vendor for imaging her hard drive, which resulted in the vendor’s destruction of the image) despite the receipt of two subpoenas, where the court found the spoliation to be at least willful, and where the circumstances surrounding the spoliation permitted an inference that the information destroyed was highly relevant to the litigation, court found an entry of default was appropriate and set a hearing to determine the appropriate damages

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, defamation, etc. arising from anonymous emails sent to several parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

LW. Matteson, Inc. v. Sevenson Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. 10-CV-168S, 2012 WL 5597653 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Although the allegedly spoliated information was likely relevant, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s pre-litigation letter expressing dissatisfaction with defendant?s work did not put defendants on notice that the at-issue data was relevant and should be preserved and where there was no evidence that defendant intended to destroy the data but rather that the information was lost because the computer on which it was stored did not save the information and instead deleted it before it began a new job; court also noted that defendants had provided the requested information upon plaintiff?s request prior to filing of litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: WinOPS data

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, 2011 WL 814463 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs admitted to fabricating evidence and failed to comply with court orders to produce certain hard drives and other data storage and instead argued, among other things, that the hard drives etc. were in possession of an unrelated foreign corporation (ANZ International) and that ANZ USA was not involved in the discovery violations (including the fabrication of evidence), the court rejected such arguments upon establishing the connection between ANZ Int. and ANZ USA and ordered that plaintiffs? claims be dismissed

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence, hard drives, other storage devices

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 07-3453, 2011 WL 2038714 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to conduct a sufficient search for responsive information and where an important email was located only upon a forensic search of defendant?s computer system after plaintiff offered to bear the costs, court ordered that half of the costs of the search be shifted to defendant

Nature of Case: Breach of warranty and violations of certain state law proscriptions against consumer fraud in connection with sale of motorcoach

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Hitachi Television Optical Block Cases, No. 08cv1746 DMS (NLS), 2011 WL 3263781 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite the intentional deletion of ESI by defendant?s employee, court declined to impose evidentiary sanctions where there was no showing of prejudice (because the vast majority of deleted ESI was recovered); court also denied request for attorneys? costs and fees pursuant to its inherent authority or under Rule 37

Nature of Case: Putative Class Action alleging a product defect

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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

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

Tag:Motion for Sanctions