Key Insight: not ordered to reproduce production of documents in native format (with metadata) but only categories specifically requested by plaintiff
Nature of Case: wrongful termination – contract
Electronic Data Involved: email
Keywords: native format
Key Insight: No sanctions when electronically stored information is lost during ordinary course of business.
Nature of Case: Sanctions
Electronic Data Involved: electronically stored information
Keywords: Safe harbor, Rule 37(e), good faith, normal course of business, spoiliation
Key Insight: Plaintiff unsuccessfully seeks injunction to prevent destruction of certain evidence. Defendants argued that sanctions would be inappropriate and no spoliation had occurred.
Nature of Case: Inmate pro se plaintiff asserts a host of constitutional violations against the U.S. and individual prison personnel.
Electronic Data Involved: Deleted video footage.
Keywords: Failure to preserve, destruction of evidence, spoliation, adverse inference.
Key Insight: Magistrate recommended sanctions for defendants’ willful failure to comply with his discovery order. No finding of bad faith.
Nature of Case: Breach of contract.
Electronic Data Involved: Defendant emails and text messages.
Keywords: “Strong circumstantial evidence” that the defendants had concealed documents. Adverse inference instructions and legal costs imposed by court.
Key Insight: Failure to preserve relevant evidence.
Nature of Case: Trademark ownership dispute.
Electronic Data Involved: Defendants discarded computers, following an alleged power surge which “fried” data.
Keywords: Defendants “willfully spoliated evidence” and the “extraordinary measures Batterman undertook to mislead opposing counsel and the Court merit a finding of bad faith.”
Key Insight: whether defendants acted with prejudice in not preserving “loop type system” video footage; whether spoliation sanctions apply for destroyed evidence
Nature of Case: Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference and excessive force (cruel and unusual punishment)
Electronic Data Involved: medical records
Keywords: spoliation, preserve, prejudice, intent, bad faith, loop type system
Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable
Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings
Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering
Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering
Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party
Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications
Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party
Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs bad discovery behaviors included hiring a computer technician to work on her computer before producing it for inspection, including using C Cleaner to delete files; deleting several .pst files; and producing a seemingly incomplete set of documents from Facebook, the court called it ?an exceedingly close case? but, because of the lack of meaningful prejudice, declined to impose terminating sanctions and ordered an adverse inference and other evidentiary sanctions and that Defendants were entitled to recoup their fees related to the sanctions motion
Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged sexual harassment on the job
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, Facebook (social network)
Key Insight: On appeal, Supreme Court found that lower court?s failure to order default judgment for Defendant?s spoliation of potentially relevant surveillance video despite a request for preservation and the sophistication and experience to understand the need to preserve was not an abuse of discretion but did find that the failure to award a meaningful sanction was an abuse of discretion where the instruction that Defendant would not be allowed to discuss the surveillance video?which it claimed showed no evidence of the at-issue accident?unless Plaintiff brought it up put the Plaintiff in a bind such that if he brought up the destruction of the video, Defendant could argue it contained nothing, and thus take advantage of the video?s unavailability to rebut their claim; the case was remanded for a new trial
Nature of Case: Work-related injury
Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.