Motion for Sanctions – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

Rockwood v. SKF USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3860414 (D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Gutman v. Klein, 2010 WL 4975554 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Medcorp, Inc. v. Ponpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (June 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Edington v. Madison Coal & Supply Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2244078 (E.D. Ky. June 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Pitney Bowes Gov. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 186616 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp., 2010 WL 2812999 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court imposed spoliation sanction and precluded plaintiff and its expert from offering opinion or evidence on any simulations relied upon in forming the basis of plaintiff?s Second Infringement Report where the input data upon which the simulations relied were lost in a computer crash and where plaintiff failed to timely disclose the destruction

Electronic Data Involved: Input data forming basis for expert’s report

Tag:Motion for Sanctions