Tag:Spoliation

1
R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)
2
Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)
3
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So.2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
4
Lexis-Nexis v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minn. 1999)
5
Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)
6
Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Assoc., 728 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
7
Symantec Corp. v. McAfee Assoc., Inc., 1998 WL 740798 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 1998)
8
Fuller v. Instinet, Inc., 2004 WL 3699810 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2004)
9
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)
10
MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)

R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)

Key Insight: Trial court properly imposed terminating sanctions against plaintiff for egregious discovery abuses, including the deletion of files from hard drives after plaintiff had stipulated that computers and diskettes would not be operated or touched until defendants’ computer expert could examine them

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, computer files

Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: EPA violated preliminary injunction that prohibited destruction of potentially responsive documents by reformatting hard drives and erasing or overwriting backup tapes containing potentially responsive email; EPA held in civil contempt and ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of EPA’s contumacious conduct

Nature of Case: FOIA action

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives and email stored on backup tapes

Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So.2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Key Insight: Affirming jury award for plaintiff, where plaintiff had been permitted to add claim for negligent destruction of evidence based on defendant’s failure to preserve electronic records and computer hard drive, court found no error in allowing plaintiff to introduce at trial evidence of defendant’s discovery misconduct. Court further concluded that strong statements of disapproval of defendant’s discovery abuses did not require trial judge’s recusal.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract suit between former partners

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Lexis-Nexis v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minn. 1999)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for monetary sanctions against defendant for violating TRO by failing to return proprietary information and data to plaintiff, but reserved judgment on amount of award pending further proceedings

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee for misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing sales and customer information, email, laptop, zip disk

Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Negative inference not warranted in NTSB board proceeding where computer tapes containing radar data were destroyed pursuant to FAA policy and without notice that pilot would raise issue of near-miss

Nature of Case: Petition for review of order of NTSB revoking pilot’s airline transport certificate

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes containing radar data

Long Island Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v. Stony Brook Diagnostic Assoc., 728 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Key Insight: Trial court erred in not dismissing defendants’ counterclaim and third party complaint as sanction for spoliation of evidence — contrary to court’s orders, defendants purged databases and produced backup tapes that were compromised and unusable

Nature of Case: Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that it was not in default of license agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer databases and backup tapes

Symantec Corp. v. McAfee Assoc., Inc., 1998 WL 740798 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 1998)

Key Insight: Where defendants admitted to removing customer sales information from sales representatives’ computers by means of “delete and scrub” utilities in response to plaintiff’s claim that such material constituted trade secrets, and retained copies of deleted information, court granted unopposed motion for preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from distributing customer sales information and recalling and impounding customer sales information database

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement; plaintiff also alleged that defendant obtained private customer sales information from plaintiff’s former sales representative

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing customer sales information

Fuller v. Instinet, Inc., 2004 WL 3699810 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide affidavits of all employees with access to employment databases and hiring practices, in order to establish whether any documents or data was destroyed, since discovery had been closed for one year and there was no evidence that defendants had destroyed documents

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Hiring and employment database and records

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for default judgment but granted motion for an adverse inference instruction and $20,000 in monetary sanctions where, in advance of court-ordered inspection, defendants deleted from their computers numerous electronic files which had been copied from former employer’s computer systems prior to their resignations, and, after the inspection, defendants failed to comply with court’s order that they delete all of plaintiffs’ files from their computers

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

MasterCard Int’l v. Moulton, 2004 WL 1393992 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2004)

Key Insight: Finding no bad faith in defendant’s failure to preserve email since defendants simply persevered in their normal document retention practices, court nonetheless ruled that plaintiff would be allowed to prove the facts reflecting the non-retention of email and argue to the trier of fact that this destruction of evidence, in addition to other proof offered at trial, warranted certain inferences

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.