Spoliation – Page 32 – Electronic Discovery Law

GN Netcom v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 12-1318-LPS, 2016 WL 3792833 (D. Del. July 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where a senior executive deleted massive amounts of email and instructed others to do the same despite a duty to preserve and the company?s issuance of a litigation hold, the court indicated that the company?s efforts did not absolve it of all responsibility for the failures of a member of its senior management (and noted the company?s own bad conduct in litigating the deletion issue, including its initial refusal to disclose the identity of its forensic expert) and concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to preserve and found that the deletions were in bad faith and prejudicial to the Plaintiff and imposed sanctions including monetary sanctions in the form of reasonable fees and costs, punitive sanctions in the amount of $3 million and a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: email

Konica Minolta Bus. Sols., U.S.A., Inc. v. Lowery Corp., No. 15-cv-11253, 2016 WL 4537847 (Aug. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Assessing motion for sanctions, court found that Plaintiff established Defendants? duty to preserve (preservation requests were sent to all defendants) and that ESI was lost but found that further discovery was needed to address whether two of four ?predicate elements? of Rule 37(e) were met, namely whether reasonable steps were taken to preserve and whether the lost ESI could be restored or replaced through additional discovery, reasoning that ?[a]bsent sufficient proof that reasonable steps were not taken, KMBS is not entitled to relief under 37(e), even if it is shown that the ESI was lost. Sanctions are not automatic? and that ?[f]urther, a party cannot be sanctioned where the ability exists to restore or replace the ESI from other sources.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Benefield v. MStreet Entm?t, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-1000, 2016 WL 374568 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where, despite a request from Plaintiff?s counsel to preserve all communications between plaintiff and defendants or their employees AND Defendants? OWN REQUEST that Plaintiff preserve information from her cellular phones, Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant text messages, the court rejected defendants? arguments that ?due to the nature of text message communications and the cellular devices they are stored on?a requirement to preserve text messages from private cellular phones is unduly burdensome and an invasion of privacy? and found that the messages should have been preserved and indicated that a ?spoliation instruction to the jury? would be given at trial but declined to preclude defendants? reliance on plaintiff?s text messages at trial or to order defendants to pay fees and cost associated with the extraction of plaintiffs? text messages from her own phone

Nature of Case: Employment

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Barnett v. Deere & Co., No. 2:15-CV-2-KS-MTP, 2016 WL 4544052 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Applying 5th Circuit common law (but acknowledging the outcome of the motion would not change under recently-amended Rule 37(e)), the court declined to impose sanctions for the destruction of relevant documents pursuant to Defendant?s document retention policy at a time when there was no duty to preserve and, in its discussion of bad faith, noted that the court ?does ?not draw an inference of bad faith when documents are destroyed under a routine policy??

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including committee minutes and product testing documents

Garcia v. City of Farmington, No. Civ. 12-383 JCH/SCY, 2016 WL 7438045 (D. N.M. Jul. 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Plaintiff created audio recordings during her employment with Defendant, transcribing some of them and later deleting recordings she felt to be insignificant. Plaintiff also claimed her computer ?crashed? in 2011 or 2012 and that caused her to lose material (this issue not raised at previous deposition). After the close of trial, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion for Adverse Spoliation Inference and to Strike Testimony. The court found Plaintiff had a duty to preserve because she made the recordings after she filed a grievance and EEOC charge. Plaintiff admitted that the deleted recordings did not ?capture unfair and discriminatory treatment of her,? which the court found to ?cure any prejudice Defendant may have suffered.? The court found that Plaintiff?s actions ?were intentional and more than merely negligent, but she did not act with a sinister intent,? and that Plaintiff did not understand she needed to preserve all the recordings. The court will consider Defendant?s evidence of Plaintiffs spoliation when it weighs the evidence presented at trial, but otherwise denied Defendant?s request to impose sanctions.

Nature of Case: Renewed Motion for Adverse Spoliation Inference and to Strike Testimony, on underlying case of discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, —F. Supp. 3d—, 2016 WL 1555784 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant admitted to deleting emails while aware of potential litigation but claimed he thought the emails were backed up and that he never deleted anything from Plaintiff?s server, the court called the evidence ?troubling? but declined to impose spoliation sanctions because the evidence of bad faith was insufficient, citing in pat Defendant?s own equivocation for why he deleted the emails and his admitted practice of deleting emails in the ordinary course of business and the fact that the emails he admitted to forwarding to a personal account and then deleting were eventually produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Browder v. Albuquerque, No. CIV 13-0599 RB/KBM, 2016 WL 3946801 (D.N.M. July 20, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where relevant video was lost as a result of mistakes made by representatives of the defendant who were attempting to pull and preserve the video from the recording system for the first time and where CDs with the footage ?vanished,? the court reasoned that the errors were symptoms of a ?larger problem: an inadequate information management and evidence retention policy? (a point it relied on significantly in its discussion of culpability) and also found that the plaintiff was prejudiced and imposed sanctions allowing Plaintiff to present evidence that the video existed and was lost through negligence and indicated that if Defendant attempted to elicit testimony from a deputy regarding what he saw on the video (that was viewed by several of defendant?s representatives before it was lost), the jury would be instructed to make any inference they believed was appropriate; the court also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s expenses and fees incurred in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Traffic accident involving a police officer

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Keim v. ADF Midatlantic LLC, No. 12-CV-80577-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN, 2016 WL 7048835 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant brought a motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(1) alleging Plaintiff failed to preserve text messages on his cell phone. The text messages at issue were dated in February and March of 2011, while Plaintiff admitted that he anticipated bringing suit on or before October 1, 2011. In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that ?he deletes most of his text messages and does not ?keep them around that long,?? and after carefully reviewing Plaintiff?s deposition transcript, it was ?clear to the court that Plaintiff is utterly confused and uncertain of anything related to the existence or deletion of the February to March 2011 text messages.? The court found that (i) it was possible that the text messages at issue were deleted before a duty to preserve arose; (ii) the ESI was not ?lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it;? and (iii) the evidence could not be discovered from other sources. Defendant?s motion for sanctions was denied.

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages

Mathur v. Hospitality Props. Trust, No. 13-cv-7206, 2016 WL 520999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s claim that defendant?s duty to preserve surveillance footage was triggered by the fact that it knew Defendant was robbed in its hotel, that the police were involved, and that both the police and Defendants ?were using the footage to investigate the incident? (perhaps evidenced by the preservation of different footage at the request of police), the court reasoned that ??mere knowledge of the accident and the possible causes of the accident? is not enough to create a duty to preserve evidence? and found that defendant?s spoliation claim failed

Nature of Case: Claims arising from robbery of hotel guest

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Terral v. Ducote, No. 15-2366, 2016 WL 5017328 (W.D. La. Sept. 19, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where pro se prisoner sought production of video footage of the alleged use of excessive force but failed to request the video or file a grievance for 30 days and the tape was recorded over, the court found that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that Defendant had not taken reasonable steps to preserve the footage or that Defendant acted with the intent to deprive and denied the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner defendant, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

Tag:Spoliation