Motion for Sanctions – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

Wright v. City of Salisbury, 2010 WL 126011 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff purposefully arranged a conversation with the mayor, recorded the conversation, preserved the portion relevant to his lawsuit on his website server and then lost the remaining, irrelevant portion as the result of problems with his computer, court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish plaintiff?s bad faith or any prejudice resulting from the loss and where the court found plaintiff?s uncontroverted explanation for the loss ?reasonable and believable?

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A., 2010 WL 1688203 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce 15 emails (which were discovered in a productions from third parties), court declined to find that plaintiff had waived its objections to defendant?s request but ordered plaintiff to file an affidavit from a representative with first hand knowledge of how the search was undertaken providing ?a specific explanation of what information was discovered concerning how and why the email at issue were not picked up during the course of that search? and noted that defendant was free to raise the failure to produce those emails with the witnesses at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Read v. Teton Springs Golf & Casting Club, LLC, 2010 WL 2697596 (D. Idaho July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant attached to a motion an email not previously produced and where plaintiff thereafter sought an explanation for the source of the email, access to defendant?s hard drives, and sanctions, the court found defendant had responded to discovery in good faith but ordered defendant to identify the source of the email at issue and all other hard drives containing responsive documents in its possession; where a custodian represented his hard drive had been replaced in 2006, but produced no email prior to 2007, court (without suggesting misconduct) ordered production of his hard drive to be mirrored

Nature of Case: Claims arising from the manner in which Defendants marketed and sold their properties

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hard drives

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty to preserve at the time of defendants? destruction of ESI; court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish the relevance of the emails at issue or any prejudice resulting from plaintiff?s failure to produce certain emails, particularly where defendant possessed its own copies; court denied defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer but acknowledged their right to explore plaintiff?s preservation practices at deposition and ordered plaintiff to make a mirror image of her hard drive to be left in the custody of her attorney to assure preservation of ESI

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

Concerned Citizens for Crystal City v. City of Crystal City, 334 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. App. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where trial court ordered a single plaintiff to produce all information in his possession or control that had been posted to a relevant web forum and where that plaintiff complied in part but withheld information that could have uniquely identified users and unposted private messages, the trial court abused its discretion in striking all plaintiffs? pleadings and dismissing their claims as a sanction for discovery violations where the request for discovery was overly broad in the first place and where the sanction imposed for failing to respond to such an overly broad request was ?unjust?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from city’s approval of development of property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI posted to website and electronic forum

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., 2010 WL 4004164 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Based upon suspicious timing of the disappearance of ESI, the court inferred that evidence had been destroyed in bad faith by a person who knew that it would ?very well reveal information Defendants did not want revealed? and ordered an adverse inference instruction to the jury at trial, that plaintiff should be permitted to amend its claims to add a claim for exemplary damages based on the adverse inference, that defendants pay plaintiff?s costs and fees, and that defendants make unredacted mirror images of the hard drives of each employee of the corporate defendant at defendants? expense, to be delivered to plaintiff by a date certain; hard drives were covered by a previously entered protective order

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.P.A., 2010 WL 1631519 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found defendants were ?at least? grossly negligent for failing to issue a written litigation hold and ordered defendants to pay the costs of plaintiff?s motion to compel as well as a $25,000 fine; in devising its sanction, the court considered defendants other conduct, including defendants? deficient search for responsive documents, defense counsel?s lack of meaningful supervision in the discovery process, and defendants? decision to withhold certain documents deemed insufficiently important, among other things

Nature of Case: Lanham Act/ mislabeled ingredients

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Amerisource Corp. v. RX USA Int?l, Inc., 2010 WL 2730748 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where a non-party principal of defendant fabricated emails, used those emails to support defendant?s claim, and testified to their authenticity during the course of litigation, the court sanctioned the non-party and defendant and found them jointly and severally liable for payment of $100,000 – half to be paid to plaintiff and half to be paid to the clerk of the court; to sanction non-party, court reasoned that as ?the majority shareholder, chief executive, and only person affiliated with [defendant] to have a substantive role in this litigation?, ?[the principal] is RxUSA? and relied upon its inherent authority to sanction him for litigation misconduct

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated emails

Grey v. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 2010 WL 3526478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered nothing more than speculation regarding defendants? alleged intentional or grossly negligent spoliation of metadata and where defendant asserted that before destroying the server at issue, the information thereon was migrated and no metadata was knowingly changed, the court declined ?to infer from the absence of metadata that such evidence would have been favorable to Plaintiff?s claims?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic records of phone calls, metadata

Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where defendant Highwall breached its obligation to preserve information related to the underlying royalty dispute following receipt of a letter which triggered the duty to preserve and ordered that discovery be re-opened and that defendant Highwall bear the costs but also found that the duty to preserve documents related to the development of allegedly infringing software was not triggered until the filing of the complaint and that no spoliation had occurred; court found purchaser of Highwall?s assets during pendency of the royalty dispute had no duty to preserve where the software at issue was excluded from purchaser?s acquisition

Nature of Case: Royalty dispute, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion for Sanctions