Spoliation – Page 45 – Electronic Discovery Law

First Senior Fin. Group LLC v. ?Watchdog,? No. 12-cv-1247, 2014 WL 1327584 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied four-part test to determine that defendant acted intentionally and in bad faith to suppress or withhold relevant evidence, but because the prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from the spoliation appeared minimal and plaintiffs did not present any arguments as to how the spoliation prejudiced the ultimate merits of their case, court would only require defendant to pay the cost of the independent computer forensics expert and attorneys’ fees associated with plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions; court denied all other relief and sanctions sought by plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, violations of the Lanham Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, computer hard drive

Ferriggi v. Best Yet Market of Astoria, Inc., No. 8564/2013, 2014 WL 5334000 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found that defendant was negligent in failing to preserve or to make diligent efforts to retrieve surveillance video, but that loss of video did not fatally deprive plaintiff of means to prosecute his action given that witness who viewed the videotape and grocery store worker who unpacked boxes near accident location were available to testify, and accident report and medical response reports provided plaintiff with ability to prove proximate cause of accident; trial court would fashion appropriate negative inference charge against defendant based upon its failure to preserve the videotape and defendant would be precluded from offering testimony at trial to contradict plaintiff’s claim of adequate notice or that defendant created the condition which caused plaintiff to slip and fall

Nature of Case: Slip and fall accident at supermarket

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Shlian v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., No. BPG-13-954, 2014 WL 1320102 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Spoliation sanction of a negative inference jury instruction based on defendant?s failure to preserve CCTV tape that recorded plaintiff?s fall was not warranted, since defendant had no duty to preserve the tape because it had no reason to anticipate litigation, and defendant lacked the requisite mental state as the incident footage was taped over in the normal course of business and not through an intentional act

Nature of Case: Slip and fall personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Closed-circuit TV tape

Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Park, No. 13-cv-03323-MMC (JCS), 2014 WL 2567914 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant?s duty to preserve arose upon threat of litigation and where he was reminded of the obligation in correspondence with opposing counsel and then ordered by the court to preserve, the court found that the level of culpability rose with each indication and thus found that the defendant had failed to preserve ESI in bad faith but, absent evidence of the level of resulting prejudice (attempts to recover the deleted data had not yet been undertaken), declined to impose a an adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trade secret, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on multiple devices

EEOC v. Suntrust Bank, No. 8:12-cv-1325-T-33MAP, 2014 WL 1364982 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice EEOC?s motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, indicating it may consider this ruling at a later date if presented with further evidence tending to show bad faith conduct by SunTrust; court would permit the EEOC to introduce evidence at trial concerning SunTrust?s video surveillance system, SunTrust?s policies relating to use and preservation of video surveillance footage, and SunTrust?s failure to preserve video footage at issue, where Suntrust isolated and carefully reviewed tapes to investigate (and partly validate) one plaintiff?s claims, but then put that same footage back into circulation to be taped over and did not retain or preserve the footage

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage from bank’s security cameras

Kinsler v. City of Philadelphia, No. 13-6412, 2014 WL 3964925 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions based on police department’s loss of cell phone video, as the video did not capture any interaction between plaintiff and the two police officers and it was unclear how the video could be relevant to plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff possessed a second video that did capture the events of the night in question and therefore plaintiff was not prejudiced by loss of the cell phone video, and there was no evidence that the two officers (the only remaining defendants in the case) were ever in possession or control of the cell phone video or responsible for its destruction

Nature of Case: Claims for excessive force and malicious prosecution

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone video recorded by a witness to the events, 15-30 seconds in duration, which was uploaded onto a Philadelphia Police Department computer and subsequently lost

Lovett v. Cole, No. 1:11-cv-277, 2014 WL 5426168 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based on correctional facility?s failure to preserve video surveillance footage of ?out-of-place? incident that preceded use of force incident, or digital versions of photographs taken of plaintiff?s injuries and cell after use of force incident, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a duty to preserve digital versions of photographs where hard copy photographs were preserved in accordance with the facility?s policy and procedure, and there was no evidence that defendants knew about the ?out-of-place? incident or recognized it as relevant to the use of force incident (the video footage of which was preserved); court further found that plaintiff failed to show that defendants deliberately lost or destroyed the evidence with a culpable state of mind

Nature of Case: Inmate sued correctional officers for use of excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage and digital information regarding plaintiff’s injuries and cell

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., No. 12-cv-11500, 2015 WL 1029540 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found an individual defendant had control over deleted emails in an account located on a Comcast server and that the deletion of the emails was not ?merely coincidental to the winding-down of the business operations? of Defendant but rather was intentional, ?to prevent the discovery of the evidence therein?; reasoning that Plaintiff was not prevent from proving its most crucial allegations, the court declined to impose ?case-terminating? sanctions, but did order monetary sanctions against the individual defendant who controlled the emails and that Defendants? would bear the cost of a forensic search of their computers; notably, the inspection would apply to all defendants? computers, despite the court?s finding that one individual defendant had no control over the deleted emails and could not be held responsible for the deletion where the court explained (in footnote) that the non-spoliating defendant?s email account (used by his clinic) was registered to the spoliating defendant and where the non-spoliating defendant testified that he had not conducted a proper search of his computers

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on third party (Cloud) server

Celestica Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 312(GBD)(MHD), 2014 WL 1301881 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Mandatory adverse inference instruction was not warranted by former Chairman’s admitted deletion of e-mails after his retirement despite written document preservation instruction from corporate counsel at the outset of litigation, as defendants did not have requisite culpable state of mind and there was insufficient evidence of relevance or prejudice; instead, permissive adverse inference instruction was appropriate

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails of defendant Celestica’s former Chairman of the Board

Mazzei v. Money Store, No. 01cv5694 (JGK)(RLE), 2014 WL 3610894 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Defendant failed to preserve data in its control (an issue it hotly contested) when it sold certain assets of its wholly owned subsidiary, including the database/?system? that contained the at issue data; court found failure to preserve was willful and in bad faith and that plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss; where a non-party who works with defendant indicated that it had information from the at issue system but that the information was not ?readable? and that it would be expensive to extract and convert it, the court ordered defendant to bear the cost of determining whether the system was searchable and to pay plaintiff his attorneys fees for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Class action re: violation of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:Spoliation