Spoliation – Page 20 – Electronic Discovery Law

Storey v. Effingham Cnty., No. CV 415-149, 2017 WL 2623775 (S.D. Ga. June 16, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: For Defendants? negligent (or even reckless) failure to preserve relevant video footage following Plaintiff?s release from jail despite the ?distinct possibility? of litigation in light of the injuries Plaintiff suffered while in custody and his specific threats to sue, the court imposed sanctions to redress the prejudice to Plaintiff and ordered that the court would tell the jury that the video was not preserved and that the parties could present evidence and argument regarding that failure for the jury?s consideration

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage from jail

Keathley v. Grange Ins. Co. of Mich., 15-cv-11888, 2017 WL 1173767 (E.D.Mich., Mar. 30, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: In this insurance litigation, the district court affirmed an order of the magistrate judge requiring Defendant?s counsel to provide additional information regarding the fate of relevant photographs but, upon review of the declaration submitted, found that it did not adequately address the loss and ordered that a representative of Defendant?s IT personnel be deposed; in concluding that a duty to preserve existed prior to Defendant?s ?final? determination regarding the claim, court reasoned in part that Defendant had asserted attorney client privilege with its outside counsel re: ?coverage issues? prior to its final determination and also noted its decision to require Plaintiff to testify under oath, indicating its skepticism of Plaintiff?s claim, and Defendant?s own request for Plaintiff to submit additional evidence, including any pictures

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Zamora v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., Inc. , 3:16-05028-CV-RK, 2017 WL 1362688 (W.D. Mo., Mar. 11, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff in an employment litigation failed to preserve a potentially relevant Facebook post, deleted her work phone before returning it and failed to preserve information contained on numerous other phones (e.g., because they were lost, etc.), court found that ?Plaintiff cannot be relied on to disclose all relevant communications? and granted motion to allow access to the mirror image of a phone belonging to a former employee and co-worker of the plaintiff and to allow defendant to subpoena the former employee to produce a second phone for inspection and ordered production of Plaintiff?s current work phone, to be reviewed by a Special Master for potentially relevant communications, with the cost of the Special Master to be split between the parties ; court found request for dismissal or an adverse inference was premature

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from cellular phones, Facebook

Brown v. Albertsons, LLC, 2:16-cv-01991-JAD-PAL, 2017 WL 1957571 (D. Nev. May 10, 2017)

Dec 01 2017

Key Insight: In response to Plaintiff?s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions, the Court engaged in an analysis of four types of available sanctions: Evidentiary, Monetary, Dispositive and Adverse Inference Instructions. The Plaintiff argued the Defendant intentionally destroyed evidence in the form of an incident report, a surveillance video and correspondence between Defendant and a third-party claims adjuster. The Court found that information from the incident report and the lost emails with the claims adjuster were available elsewhere and that the loss of the video surveillance was due to a system-wide outage that affected several stores. The Court found no evidence that Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly and denied Plaintiff?s request for Dispositive Sanctions but instead imposed lesser Evidentiary Sanctions by allowing the Plaintiff to introduce evidence that the incident report was lost or destroyed, that the Defendant failed to preserve the third-party communications and that Defendant?s video system failed to record the incident.

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including video

Coward v. Forestar Realty, Inc., 4:15-cv-0245-HLM (N.D. Georgia, Rome Division, 2017)

Nov 30 2017

Key Insight: Plaintiffs unable to access password protected video camera offered hard drive to Defendants; Court held inaccessible videos were spoliated.

Nature of Case: property damage claim

Electronic Data Involved: videos

Keywords: spoliation, prejudice, sanctions, adverse inference, attorney’s fees

View Case Opinion

Washington v. Rounds, No. PWG-16-320 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 2017)

Nov 27 2017

Key Insight: Spoliation. Court ordered discovery to determine if failure to preserve relevant evidence, and if so, whether 37(e) sanctions are warranted.

Nature of Case: civil action under 42 U.S.C. s. 1983

Electronic Data Involved: prisoner surveillance video

Keywords: Spoliation, failure to preserve relevant evidence.

View Case Opinion

IBM Corp. v. Naganayagam, No. 15 Civ. 7991 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y., 2017)

Nov 21 2017

Key Insight: spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: e-mails, electronic document

Keywords: spoliation, adverse inference, intent to deprive, 37(e)(2), prejudice 37(e)(1)

View Case Opinion

Yoe v. Crescent Sock (E.D. Tenn. , 2017)

Nov 14 2017

Key Insight: was there a duty to preserve, were reasonable steps taken to avoid loss of data, can lost data be restored or replaced, was other party prejudiced by loss

Nature of Case: employment law, intellectual property

Electronic Data Involved: unknown

Keywords: spoliation, intent to deprive, relevance of data, measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice

View Case Opinion

Eaton-Stephens v. Grapevine Colleyville Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 16-11611, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22704 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2017)

Nov 13 2017

Key Insight: Violation of a document retention rule is not per se bad faith.

Nature of Case: employment dispute

Electronic Data Involved: deleted electronic records

Keywords: document retention, rule violation, bad faith, spoliation, adverse inference

View Case Opinion

Campbell v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP (Southern District of New York, 2017)

Nov 09 2017

Key Insight: conducting firm business on personal email accounts, employees’ personal email account will be subject to discovery if the employers allow them to mingle their work and personal email accounts.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination, class action

Electronic Data Involved: personal email accounts, 115,000 documents, 2.5 terabytes of data of 25 custodians

Keywords: interspersing work and personal emails, overlap, spoliation, pay discrimination, wrongful termination

View Case Opinion

Tag:Spoliation