Motion for Sanctions – Page 78 – Electronic Discovery Law

Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where issues of material fact existed as to the willfulness of defendant?s destruction of potentially relevant ESI and as to whether such destruction ?disrupted? plaintiff?s case, court denied defendant?s motion for summary judgment as to its claim of spoliation and denied plaintiff?s request for an adverse inference as to claims 1 through 4, but indicated its willingness to entertain a motion for an appropriate jury instruction at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of confidentiality agreement and related claims, independant cause of action for spoliation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for sanctions where, despite defendant?s failure to preserve all relevant portions of a surveillance video tape, the court found the tape would not have revealed information necessary to establish defendant?s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition at issue and thus, there was no prejudice to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Booker v. Mass. Dept. of Public Health, 612 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in failing to issue an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to establish the evidentiary foundation for such an instruction, namely that the party accused of spoliation was 1) aware of the pending claim, and 2) aware of the document?s relevance to that claim

Nature of Case: Retaliation, torotuous interference with contractual employment relations

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, 913 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court upheld grant of adverse inference for intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a hard drive ordered to be produced for inspection and noted that because the destruction was intentional or grossly negligent, the court?s inference as to the erased emails? relevance was proper

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of hard drive

Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 2010 WL 366653 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In class action for unpaid wages, court denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions arising from defendants? admitted failure to preserve potentially relevant video surveillance tape where, because of the primary purpose of the surveillance cameras, i.e., deterring theft, the court could not conclude that defendants was obligated to immediately identify the footage as potentially relevant to plaintiffs? wage claims and preserve it and where, when plaintiffs? claims were filed, ?much of the footage? had already been destroyed pursuant to routine recycling of the surveillance tapes

Nature of Case: Action for unpaid wages

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

United States v. Renzi, 2010 WL 1417475 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants accused the government of spoliation of all disks (originals and copies) containing relevant data from a particular computer system and requested dismissal of the indictment against them as a result, court denied the motion for dismissal upon determining that defendants failed to establish the materiality of the data such that its destruction (intentional or otherwise) was a constitutional violation and where a complete copy of the data existed on a backup tape seized later in the investigation

Nature of Case: Criminal – Mail fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored on JENKON system

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 269 F.R.D. 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For ?defendant?s recalcitrance in meeting its discovery obligations?, namely refusing to produce certain discovery on the basis of foreign secrecy laws (a justification previously rejected by the court), the court imposed severe sanctions, including adverse inference instructions and an order precluding the presentation of certain evidence

Nature of Case: Knowingly and purposefully aiding and abetting terrorists and terrorist organizations

Electronic Data Involved: Foreign banking information

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions