Motion for Sanctions – Page 94 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bennett v. Martin, 2009 WL 4048111 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to adequately respond to discovery in defiance of two court orders, trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of certain of defendants? hard drives to ensure that all responsive documents had been produced but erred in ?not providing adequate protections to safeguard the confidentiality? of defendants? information; case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the protocol described by the appellate court, i.e., the retention of an independent expert to retrieve potentially responsive files to be reviewed by the producing party before production to ensure protection of confidentiality and privilege

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

In re Kessler, 2009 WL 2603104 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: In a case arising from the fire of a boat while in the marina the district court rejected the magistrate?s recommendation in favor of spoliation sanctions for the marina?s failure to preserve surveillance video because the court found that the owner of the boat did not meet the burden of establishing the marina?s culpable destruction of relevant tape in violation of a duty to preserve where the footage ?self destructed approximately twenty-seven hours after it was recorded? when it was automatically recorded over in the regular course of the system?s activities; marina was ordered to bear the cost of conducting forensic examination of its hard drive to determine if fire footage could be retrieved

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from a vessel destroyed by fire while in the marina

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff settled its claim of intentional spoliation against one defendant no longer in the case but failed to bring that claim against the defendants that remained and where the evidence was undisputed that the defendant who had settled all claims and was no longer a party to the litigation had maintained exclusive custody and control of the at-issue hard drives and plaintiff offered no evidence of the remaining defendants? involvement in destroying the relevant hard drives, the court held that the remaining defendants could not be sanctioned under either Ohio law or Federal law

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Nieves v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 1605623 (V.I. June 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for a spoliation instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly spoliated videotape ever existed and where a witness testified at deposition that since he didn?t keep the videotape after checking it, it means no film was made of the relevant incident

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2008 WL 928332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where court had earlier ruled that defendant could recover attorney fees and costs relating to motion to compel and forensic inspection of plaintiff?s computer servers, court denied defendant?s subsequent request for $944,902 in attorneys? fees and instead awarded $105,000 as reasonable amount of attorneys? fees incurred; court further ordered plaintiff to pay neutral computer expert only for fees directly related to forensic inspection and not for those related to defendant’s advocacy in the action

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: Computer servers

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191 (D.S.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Adverse inference instruction appropriate for two forms of spoliation: (1) individual defendant?s intentional disposal of USB Thumb-Drive containing plaintiff’s proprietary information to prevent plaintiff from “making an issue” of it, and (2) alteration or loss of data through defendants’ mere continued use of laptop and through installation and un-installation of various programs; default judgment not warranted since plaintiff had considerable evidence available to support its argument that defendants misappropriated its confidential information

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and computer fraud and abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive, USB Thumb-Drive

Barrett v. Ambient Pressure Diving, Ltd., 2008 WL 4280360 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Sanction of dismissal not warranted where data stored on dive computers was lost when it could no longer be downloaded after one year, since plaintiff did not engage in deliberate destruction, she did not know whether data was helpful or hurtful to her case because she had not seen it, and she had not known that data would automatically become unavailable for download after one year; defendant?s entitlement to alternative relief to be decided at trial; court further granted plaintiff?s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant?s counterclaims for ?fraud on the court? and ?spoliation of evidence?

Nature of Case: Negligence, product liability, wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Dive information stored on VR3 dive computers

Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4682226 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 21, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel where plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that requested emails existed and where defendant offered sworn testimony that all responsive document had been produced; court also denied plaintiffs? motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff offered no evidence that allegedly spoliated materials existed; where defendant indicated its inability to locate a particular document but produced audio tapes detailing the contents, court declined to impose sanctions because plaintiffs offered no evidence of defendant?s intentional destruction of evidence and because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice in light of alternative source for requested information

Nature of Case: Litigation concerning insurance company’s denial of benefits

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

In re Riverside Healthcare, Inc., 393 B.R. 422 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where supplier?s computer system routinely deleted email after 60-90 days in the regular course of business absent a request to preserve, and emails could not be recovered from particular individual?s work station because hard drive repeatedly failed and had been replaced three times, and where liquidating supervisor could not show that deletion of email was intentional, prejudicial, or violated any duty to preserve, court found that record did not support a finding of spoliation and denied liquidating supervisor?s request for adverse inference

Nature of Case: Adverse proceeding in bankruptcy brought by liquidating supervisor against supplier/creditor of debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Pursuant to its inherent equitable authority, where plaintiff accessed one defendant?s personal email accounts without authorization and attempted to use emails therein during litigation and where such activity would be a violation of The Stored Communications Act, court precluded plaintiffs? use of those emails for all but impeachment purposes; where plaintiffs initially produced wrongfully obtained emails with their print dates obscured but defendants later gained access to original form, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Motion for Sanctions