Spoliation – Page 33 – Electronic Discovery Law

Prezio Health, Inc. v. John Schenk & Spectrum Surgical Instruments, Inc., No. 3:13 CV 1463 (WWE), 2016 WL 111406 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where individual Defendant informed his family that litigation related emails were to be preserved, but where at least three of eight ordered to be produced were lost, perhaps when Defendant?s wife transferred her emails to a new App, court found Defendant?s effort was ?grossly deficient? noting that defense counsel and Defendant had failed to impress upon the family the significance of the emails; addressing question of an appropriate sanction, Court cited Residential Funding Corp, 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002), and ordered a ?permissive adverse inference? and payment of Plaintiff?s attorney?s fees and costs incurred in pursuing the issue

Electronic Data Involved: Emails from account used by multiple family members

In re Advanced Power Sols., Inc., —S.W.3d—, 2016 WL 3438249 (Tx. Ct. App. June 21, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where trial court granted a motion for spoliation sanctions and struck all of Defendant?s pleadings and ordered an adverse inference instruction, court of appeals took up the petition for a writ of mandamus and, addressing the standards for spoliation sanctions in detail, upheld the trial court?s finding that a duty to preserve the at-issue video showing the circumstances surrounding the underlying industrial accident arose from the date of the incident in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and that Defendant breached that duty to preserve through ?willful blindness? by failing to prevent the automatic overwriting of the video despite viewing the video, allowing Plaintiff to view the video while in the hospital, and relying on the video to reconstruct the accident and conduct ?experiments?; regarding the sanctions imposed, the appellate court concluded that the adverse inference was appropriate because of the direct relationship between the loss and the instruction and where the instruction was not excessive in light of the unique nature of the evidence; court granted petition, however, as to order to strike pleadings

Nature of Case: Industrial accident resulting in injuries

Electronic Data Involved: Video of underlying accident

Cohn v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-9369, 2016 WL 7157358 (N.D. Ill. Dec 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Defendant sought production of Plaintiff?s emails, imposition of spoliation sanctions, and an extension of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce responsive documents from her Gmail and LinkedIn account, but failed to do so (later third party productions contained emails sent from her Gmail account). Plaintiff admitted she deleted emails from her Gmail account at various times, and evidence showed she instructed a subordinate to start using their personal email addresses and to delete various emails. The court found (i) a duty to preserve existed as of at least November 30, 2013, (ii) that Plaintiff breached that duty when she deleted emails, and (iii) there was a strong inference that the emails would have been unfavorable to Plaintiff because (iv) she deleted the emails in bad faith (to admittedly ?hide? the information). The court denied Defendant?s motion for equitable relief, but allowed Defendant?s alternate request that Plaintiff must provide full access to her Gmail account (details to be addressed in a meet-and-confer).

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails (gmail)

Core Labs. LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs., LLC, No. CIV-11-1157-M, 2016 WL 879324 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where emails were lost in Defendant?s transition from one service provider to another, despite efforts to preserve, the court found that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss and found that a presumptive adverse inference was appropriate but declined to impose sanctions for Defendant?s deletion of ?personal? files prior to production of a hard drive for forensic analysis where the court found such deletion ?reasonable? and also declined to impose sanctions for the wiping of an at-issue computer where the court found no bad faith in light of the alleged ?computer problems? that the wipe was intended to address and Defendant?s claim that ?anything that needed to be kept? was exported first; notably court?s analysis included specific recognition of newly amended Rule 37(e) but also recognized a common law standard requiring only prejudice to impose a spoliation sanction

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, computer files, contents of hard drive

Botey v. Green, No. 3:12-CV-01520, 2016 WL 1337665 (M.D. Pa. April 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the court granted in part Plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where ESI was automatically destroyed despite a duty to preserve as the result of Defendant?s employees? failure to forward Plaintiff?s notice of litigation and request for preservation to corporate headquarters. Declining to impose an adverse inference, the court ordered that Defendants would not be allowed to rely on the destroyed records or other evidence designed to show their contents.

Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic accident

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Muhammad v. Mathena, No. 7:14cv00529, 2016 WL 8116155 (W.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Prison employees? failure to preserve surveillance footage of inmate altercation despite notice of the obligation to do so was negligent; negligence imputed to other employees named as Defendants in Eighth Amendment claim where, despite the lack of a conventional agency relationship, the negligent/spoliating non-parties were not merely ?disinterested third parties? but rather were employees of the institution(s) responsible for preserving evidence in prisoner litigation and where requiring a conventional agency relationship would ?present a dilemma in the context of prison litigation .. where responsibility for preserving evidence may be spread out among multiple officials within an institute and where the institutions themselves are typically immune from suit?; as sanction, court forbade Defendants from putting on evidence related to Plaintiff?s disciplinary charges and conviction or the actual contents of the video and indicated it would instruct the jury that Plaintiff had requested the footage be preserved and it was not and that ?the jurors should not assume that the lack of corroborating objective evidence? undermined Plaintiff?s ?version of events surrounding the fight?

Nature of Case: Pro se Eighth Amendment Claims (prison litigation)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., NO. CV 103-50, 2016 WL 1317673 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where promised emails were not produced but Defendant ultimately produced all documents relevant to the alleged spoliation, including ?preservation communications to document custodians, a list of custodians who were searched, the search terms used to conduct the search, and project documents and materials relating to such searches,? and also submitted a representative for an extensive Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, the court found Plaintiff?s request to compel production of ?every privileged document described as concerning data collection?[wa]s overly broad, unduly burdensome and ha[d] not been shown to relate to the issue at the forefront of this entire exercise?the missing Leon emails? despite acknowledging that ?otherwise privileged documents may be discoverable upon a preliminary showing of spoliation.?

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to preservation efforts, etc. where Plainitff alleged spoliation by Defendant and sought to compel production of privileged information

Feist v Paxfire, Inc., No. 11-CV-5436 (LGS) (RLE), 2016 WL 4540830 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff?s internet browsing history was highly relevant to her claims and to establish damages but was lost as the result of her computer crashing and the use of a cleaning program after the duty to preserve arose, the court did not conclude that Plaintiff acted intentionally to deprive Defendant of the information (citing a lack of evidence to dispute Plaintiff?s claim that she regularly cleaned her hard drives prior to litigation) but did find that sanctions were warranted to cure prejudice and indicated that the court would ?presume that the absence of any cookies is unfavorable to Feist in that she cannot attribute a specific number of redirections to Paxfire? and precluded Feist from arguing in favor of statutory damages for specific internet searches or proffering evidence of specific violations

Nature of Case: Wiretap Act violations

Electronic Data Involved: Internet history

Friedman v. Philadelphia Parking Auth., No. 14-6071, 2016 WL 6247470 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant failed to preserve relevant evidence for reasons including its failure to timely issue a litigation hold following receipt of a letter threatening litigation and its lack of understanding related to the migration of its data to a new archival system resulting in the loss of ESI (e.g., Defendant was notified of but failed to address an ?over limit folder problem? related to two custodians, failed to confirm that data had successfully migrated before instructing employees to delete information ,etc.) but where Defendant undertook SUBSTANTIAL efforts to address its discovery defects and Plaintiff was unable to identify any specific information that was lost (where much was received from third parties or eventually produced as a result of Defendant?s remedial efforts) or to establish an intent to deprive, the court declined to impose sanctions pursuant to recently amended Rule 37(e); instead, pursuant to Rule 37(a) the court ordered Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and expenses necessary to prepare and file their motion for sanctions; regarding Defendant?s lack of a document retention policies and potential loss of data before implementation of its archive after its duty to preserve was triggered, the court indicated that prejudice was ?speculative? but invited a motion from Plaintiff for ?evidentiary rulings? if desired

Learning Care Grp. v. Armetta, No. 3:13-cv-1540 (VAB), 2016 WL 4191251 (D. Conn. June 17, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Where Defendant destroyed laptop of departed employee (a ?key point of contact? for Plaintiffs in their relationship with Defendant) in accordance with its usual course of business despite a duty to preserve, court found that the information lost was relevant and that prejudice resulted, but found that Defendant was merely negligent and that awarding attorneys? fees and costs was an appropriate sanction (not default judgment or an adverse inference as had been requested); court declined to consider the newly amended rules of procedure where the parties first raised the issue in September 2015, before the application of the new rules

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop of departed employee

Tag:Spoliation