Spoliation – Page 100 – Electronic Discovery Law

Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Lawyer for party successfully appealed sanctions imposed on him by trial court following emergency evidentiary hearing regarding the deletion of files from party’s home computer that was subject to inspection order; trial court violated lawyer’s due process protections by failing to provide sufficient notice of the purpose of the emergency hearing or the potential for sanctions

Nature of Case: Underlying claims were settled, and court appointed a receiver

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer, emails

Buskey v. Boston Market Corp., 2006 WL 2527826 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Defendants’ failure to produce accident report amounted to spoliation of evidence and provided additional ground for denying defense motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Slip and fall personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Accident report prepared by defendant

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

United States v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 374 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2004), rev’d, 125 S.Ct. 2129 (2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Conviction of Arthur Anderson for obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC affirmed; conviction was based on government’s allegations that, in order to protect the firm and the firm’s largest single account (Enron), Anderson ordered a mass destruction of documents to keep them from the hands of the SEC; Anderson unsuccessfully attempted to cloak the destruction of documents under the auspices of its document retention policies

Nature of Case: Criminal charge of obstructing an official proceeding of the SEC

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents

Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where there was no evidence that server logs were erased in bad faith and facts suggested that defendant was, at most, merely negligent, since it took reasonable steps to preserve relevant data — it retained and consulted with technical expert; on advice of its expert, it made a copy of the relevant server logs on CDs that could not be overwritten; it stored copies of the data on its server; and it made the data on the server available for inspection by plaintiff prior to the time it was overwritten — and where plaintiff was unable to demonstrate any real prejudice from the loss of some metadata in server logs, magistrate judge found no basis for spoliation sanctions of any kind and recommended denial of plaintiff’s sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Parties asserted claims under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, each arguing that the other had obtained unlawful access to databases

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata; server logs

Krausz Puente LLC v. Westall, 2005 WL 236862 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2005) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Trial judge did not err in imposing monetary sanctions and evidentiary sanction against individual defendant limiting the scope of his testimony, where defendant delayed for several days and deleted relevant computer files in violation of court’s order requiring defendant to “immediately make available to Plaintiff’s designated expert all computers, including hard drives and all other electronic storage media in [defendant’s] possession, custody and/or control”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: 5,300 computer files

Allianz Ins. Co. v. Otero, 353 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained that there was more to a particular claim file than what was produced, that material was destroyed and that they were prejudiced, court denied defendants’ request for dismissal of all claims for negligent spoliation of evidence, finding that defendants had not established sufficient prejudice to warrant the extreme remedy sought

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Computer-generated claim file

Larson v. Bank One Corp., 2005 WL 4652509 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Where defendant breached its duty to preserve by failing to establish a “comprehensive document retention policy” and by failing to properly disseminate the policy to its employees, and conduct evinced ?extraordinarily poor judgment? and ?gross negligence” but not willfulness or bad faith, magistrate recommended that prejudice to plaintiff could be remedied by precluding defendant from cross-examining plaintiff’s financial expert and by instructing the jury about the sanction

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Underlying data and calculations

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 2003 WL 22080734 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed case with prejudice because, among other things, plaintiffs had failed to preserve relevant electronic data that plaintiffs knew were critical, and it would be impossible for defendants to defend the case without the electronic data that was not produced and no longer available

Nature of Case: Business sued competitors for defamation and unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 4954351 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2005)

Dec 01 2005

Key Insight: Denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, court concluded that adverse inference jury instruction based upon defendant’s mistaken failure to suspend document retention policy that deleted email every 30 days was not misleading or unduly prejudicial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Spoliation