Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: For CFO?s intentional destruction of evidence to defeat litigation despite a duty to preserve, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and imposed a $100,000 fine and found that more drastic sanctions were not warranted where the resulting prejudice was mitigated by the availability of all the defendants and other witnesses for questioning

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Key Insight: Noting the need to wield a court?s inherent power to impose sanctions with ?great restraint?, the appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose attorney?s fees as an additional sanction for defendant?s spoliation where the court provided an adverse inference instruction to the jury and where the trial court found the jury?s verdict provided ?adequate compensation? for plaintiff?s claims; appellate court noted plaintiff?s failure to renew its request for fees based on spoliation following the jury?s verdict

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives, backup tapes

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer

Key Insight: Where two years following the relevant altercation the taser used on plaintiff was sent to the manufacturer for repair, deemed irreparable, and was destroyed without preserving the data contained thereon, the court ruled the spoliation was negligent and declined to impose dispositive sanctions or evidence preclusion, but, noting it was ?troubled? by the data?s destruction, granted permission for plaintiff to file a motion in limine addressing the propriety of a rebuttable inference instruction regarding the spoliation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from detention and arrest of plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff being tasered and injured

Electronic Data Involved: Taser data

Key Insight: Court denied motion for adverse inference for defendant?s ?inadequately explained, perhaps even suspect? inability to produce photographs of the alleged accident scene (the bathroom of plaintiff?s apartment) where plaintiff ?did not exhaust every available mechanism to obtain these photographs? (by failing to obtain a forensic analysis of the computers alleged to have stored the photos, for example) and where the facts underlying the absence of the photos were ?sufficiently equivocal and incomplete to defeat plaintiff?s claim of entitlement to an adverse inference? and where the probative value of the photos was ?speculative at best?; court?s denial of adverse inference resulted in denial of application of Res Ipsa Loquitur and thus the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs stored electronically and sent via email