Motion for Sanctions – Page 77 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

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

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 894 N.Y.S.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, upon en camera review, the court determined that counsel could not support his claim of privilege as to 55 emails and therefore sanctioned counsel $5000, appellate court affirmed the order and found the lower court had exercised proper discretion ?because [counsel?s] claim that the 55 e-mails were privileged was completely without merit in law and could not be supported by any reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.?

Nature of Case: Action to recover damages for breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Potenza v. Gonzales, 2010 WL 890959 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? counsel admitted he had been in possession of the videotape of plaintiff?s interview with police following his arrest but that despite a diligent search he could not find it and could offer no explanation for why, court found spoliation sanctions were warranted, noting that the second circuit has recognized ?simple negligence? as a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and ordered an adverse inference; court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant should be sanctioned for failing to preserve the original despite plaintiff?s request to do so where plaintiff offered no evidence in support of their claim that defendant ever had control of the tape or played a role in its destruction

Nature of Case: Violation of Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of police interview

In re Global Technovations, Inc., 431 B.R. 739 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to establish plaintiffs? responsibility for destroying or losing any documents and failed to establish prejudice resulting from the loss, the court concluded that no sanctions were appropriate and denied defendants? renewed motion for sanctions; in so deciding, court declined to follow the standard for imposing an adverse inference previously set forth in Forest Labs, Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. 2009 WL 998402 (E.D. Mich. 2009) which held that under some circumstances, ordinary negligence is sufficient culpability to impose an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy adversary proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for default judgment or an adverse inference where, despite finding that the alleged spoliator had intentionally deleted data in violation of his statutory duty to preserve, the court was presented with no evidence of bad faith in the data?s destruction and nothing more than speculation as to the data?s relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records subject to retention by statute

Hare v. Opryland Hospitality, LLC, 2010 WL 3719915 (D. Md. Sept. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s alleged destruction of ?full and complete surveillance video? of the relevant incident but failed to establish that defendant had the burden to preserve any video aside from the portion produced or that any other relevant footage existed and was deleted and where plaintiff failed to establish the ?requisite state of mind?, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Tag:Motion for Sanctions