Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes
Key Insight: Where debtor committed numerous discovery violations including making misrepresentations to the court regarding his possession of relevant ESI and the completeness of his productions, among other things, and where debtor ?intentionally withheld relevant, admissible evidence in order to delay and obfuscate?, court granted plaintiff?s motion for default judgment after finding that ?no lesser sanction would result in defendant?s compliance?
Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff ?contumaciously defied discovery orders? by deleting materials from her hard drive that she had been directed to produce, trial court ?improvidently exercised its discretion? by failing to dismiss all of plaintiff?s claims; appellate court reversed and entered order dismissing plaintiff?s remaining claims
Nature of Case: Personal injury
Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive
Key Insight: Where defendants were unable to produce an electronic version of an interview summary available in hard copy and where the creator of the summary testified that after printing the summary, she could not find the electronic version on her computer and hypothesized that perhaps it had inadvertently been saved in a temporary file, the court could not find that the duty to preserve had been willfully breached or that defendant had been prejudiced by the loss, particularly where a second summary of the same interview was produced and where the person who was interviewed was available for deposition and trial, and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions
Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic version of document produced only in hard copy
Key Insight: Court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of records following foreclosure on plaintiffs? company where plaintiff made a reasonable effort to ensure preservation of relevant data after the foreclosure, including requesting the data?s preservation and permission to copy relevant records, and where ultimately some (but not all) records were obtained via subpoena from the third-party purchaser of plaintiff?s former assets and defendant was unable to establish prejudice; court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? replacement of two crashed hard drives where the court could not conclude the plaintiffs intentionally or carelessly permitted the destruction, particularly in light of their attempts to recover some data with limited success; court denied spoliation sanctions for plaintiffs? use of CCleaner absent evidence that any data was actually deleted; despite the lack of prejudice resulting from one plaintiff?s admitted deletion of allegedly personal documents in light of those documents existence in hard copy, court imposed an ?adverse inference against [plaintiff?s] credibility as a witness? at trial citing the purpose of deterring similar misconduct in future
Nature of Case: Claims arising from failed business relationship
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI
Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for sanctions for allegedly ?producing a non-business-related hard drive in place of a hard drive they were supposed to produce? where defendants delayed too long in bringing the motion by waiting more than four years after the events in question and nearly two years after the court invited such a motion; addressing briefly the merits of defendants? claims, the court found the argument to be ?flawed? where defendants mischaracterized the court?s order for production and plaintiff?s testimony regarding the computers in his office
Nature of Case: Accusations of fraud
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Where special master determined spoliation was ?willful in the sense that ?Plaintiff was aware of his responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so? and thus ordered an adverse inference and for each party to bear half of defendant?s attorneys? fees and costs, magistrate judge affirmed the adverse inference upon determining it was the least harsh sanction that would provide an adequate remedy but vacated the award of half of defendant?s fees and, upon determining a reasonable amount, ordered plaintiff to pay the amount of $89,395.88
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives
Key Insight: Court found plaintiff primarily responsible for breakdown of discovery for failing to produce requested ESI or to provide satisfactory explanation of the problems precluding production but declined to order exclusion of all evidence supporting ?diminution in value? claim where plaintiff produced substantial financial information and produced the requested ESI in hard copy, where plaintiffs violated no court order, where the failure to produce was temporally limited to two ?short periods of time?, and where plaintiffs apparent ability to produce the requested ESI would prevent any prejudice; court gave defendant option of receiving ESI on ?searchable CD? or receiving the computer on which the ESI was stored for expert examination
Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy
Electronic Data Involved: Financial data in electronic format
Key Insight: Finding ?there [was] no evidence that the electronic data was ever created, much less?discarded?, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where defendant presented evidence that the relevant GPS system had to be activated in order to record data and that the system was not activated on the date of the accident, and where no regulation or law required the GPS be activated or recording
Nature of Case: Personal Injury
Electronic Data Involved: GPS data
Key Insight: Where, despite the destruction of relevant ESI, defendant was able to restore the relevant documents from backup tapes and produce them, but where the metadata was different such that the author of the documents was listed as one person rather than the many who had actually authored them, the court accepted the explanation that the author reflected in restored documents had received each document as an email attachment and saved those documents to her hard drive, thus changing the metadata, and further found that plaintiff made no showing that the documents were otherwise modified and denied the motion for sanctions
Nature of Case: Bid Protest
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.