Tag:Motion for Sanctions

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Key Insight: Where defendant established plaintiff?s breach of its duty to preserve emails by failing to timely issue litigation hold notices to all ?key players? but failed to establish defendants? bad faith or the relevance of the lost messages, court declined to impose adverse inference sanctions but ordered monetary sanctions, including defendant?s attorneys fees associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, other ESI

Key Insight: Where audio tape of council meeting was lost despite duty to preserve and where defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs? allegation that the tape was erased or replaced beyond an unsupported assertion of inadvertence, court precluded defendants from relying on occurrences at the meeting and ordered an adverse inferences to the jury; where evidence indicated computers subject to preservation were defragged repeatedly, and perhaps erased intentionally, and where defendants failed to preserve 6 hard drives despite agreeing do so, court ordered jury to be informed of failure to preserve, that defendants were precluded from arguing that the absence of evidence supported their contentions, and that the jury would be given permission to draw an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape, hard drives

Key Insight: Where forensic examination of defendant?s hard drive revealed the deletion of electronic evidence using wiping software and where at the time of the deletion defendant was subject to a duty to preserve, court declined to impose default judgment but ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Nature of Case: Claims of fraud, misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drive

Key Insight: In very long and complicated tax litigation, court found no spoliation absent a duty to preserve where, at the time the data was lost due to migration to a new email system, plaintiffs were involved in routine audit and administrative procedures likely to resolve the relevant dispute and thus had no reason to believe litigation would necessarily ensue (?Indeed, not every dispute with the IRS leads to litigation or ?anticipates? litigation); where counsel provided contradictory statements as to whether litigation was anticipated such that a duty to preserve would have arisen, court determined counsel was essentially unreliable and thus relied on ?other testimony or exhibits? and relied on counsel?s testimony only ?sparingly, when it was uncontested?

Nature of Case: Tax litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable