Spoliation – Page 45 – Electronic Discovery Law

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Pettit v. Smith, No. CV-11-02139-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 4425779 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Granting in part plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions, court ruled that under the special circumstances of the case and notwithstanding that it was not a party to the litigation, Arizona Department of Corrections had duty to preserve the missing evidence, its failure to do so was at least grossly negligent, evidence was plainly relevant and plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by its loss; court declined to impose case-terminating sanctions against individual defendants but would allow parties to present evidence and argument about the lost evidence and would instruct jury that ADC had a duty to preserve evidence, ADC did not preserve the evidence, and jurors may infer that lost evidence would have been favorable to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Inmate alleged correctional officers used excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of event, photograph of plaintiff’s hand, and other documentary evidence

Schreane v. Beemon, 575 Fed. Appx. 486 (5th Cir. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court did not err in rejecting plaintiff?s request for spoliation inference based on erasure of surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of bad faith, as plaintiff offered no evidence that anyone who knew of his objections to the subject correctional officers? conduct was involved in the decision to record over the tape; court further noted that government produced what remained of requested tape (a few minutes of plaintiff?s assault), government provided affidavit of electronics technician who described prison?s general policy of automatically recording over surveillance video not marked for investigation within 15-30 days of recording, and there was no indication that any prison official even viewed the footage because it was not live-monitored 24 hours a day

Nature of Case: Prisoner brought Bivens action against correctional officer, alleging Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance tape

Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA, 2014 WL 789086 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court sustained Microsoft’s objection to special master’s order granting adverse inference instruction in light of finding that Microsoft’s failure to preserve source code was negligent rather than willful or grossly negligent; a finding of bad faith is required in order for an adverse inference instruction to be appropriate

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Duluc v. AC & L Good Corp., 990 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court affirmed denial of motion for sanctions where defendant preserved 84 seconds of surveillance footage in response a request to preserve footage or photos that ?depict the subject slip and fall accident? and where the remainder of the footage had been automatically overwritten before plaintiff requested broader preservation; court reasoned that: ?While it may have been a better practice to preserve any footage of the area from any camera for a period before and after the accident, that was not the request made to defendants, and it would unfair to defendant to penalize it for not anticipating plaintiff’s additional requests.?

Nature of Case: Personal injury / slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Regulatory Fundamentals Group LLC v. Governance Risk Mgmt. Compliance, LLC, No. 13 Civ. 2493(KBF), 2014 WL 3844796 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court imposed terminating sanctions for willful and bad faith spoliation on the part of the defendant (who also happened to be a lawyer), including manual deletion of relevant emails, closing an email account maintained by a third party service provider for the purpose of ensuring the deletions and undertaking significant efforts to cover his tracks (including creating a false paper trail attempting to shift the blame to the service provider), and making misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, among other things

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, emails maintained by third party service provider

Schulman v. Saloon Beverage, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-193, 2014 WL 1516326 (D. Vt. Apr. 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants cooperated with Vermont Department of Liquor Control investigation and with their insurer and supplied records to the apparent satisfaction of both, and produced facially complete 62-page check detail, but failed to preserve the original ESI after filing for bankruptcy and closing business, court denied plaintiffs’ motion for an adverse inference instruction since failure to preserve was not deliberate or in bad faith and plaintiffs’ claimed prejudice was based on conjecture; however, because plaintiffs were prejudiced to the extent they could not explore possibility of fabrication or tampering with printout of check details, court would allow evidence of destruction of ESI in its original format to be admitted at trial

Nature of Case: Dram Shop Act and common law claims alleging that defendants’ sale of beer to individual caused head-on collision between individual’s vehicle and plaintiffs’ vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on restaurant’s computers in its original format

Siggers v. Campbell, No. 07-12495, 2014 WL 4978648 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Notwithstanding that litigation hold was not put into place until more than four years after complaint was filed, court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that defendant deleted any documents or evidence, or acted with an intent to conceal or destroy evidence, there was no evidence that defendant routinely exchanged email correspondence about plaintiff with others, and the vigorous work of plaintiff?s appointed counsel led to only one responsive email being produced; plaintiff would be allowed to question defendant at trial about her failure to timely impose a litigation hold and about other matters related to plaintiff?s assertion that she must have had relevant email communications that no longer exist

Nature of Case: Pro se prisoner civil rights claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Yontz v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-066 2014 WL 5109741 (S.D.Ohio Oct.10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In this FMLA interference case, Defendant?s motion for summary judgment was denied, in part because the court found merit in Plaintiff?s spoliation claim. Defendant claimed there was no willful destruction of relevant email that was missing from their computer system. However, in deposition Defendant stated that ?there has not been any automatic deletion? from its system, and ?the only way that emails could have been deleted?would have been manually by an end user.? The Court found that to the extent email was missing a reasonable juror could find it was deleted by an employee. Additionally, the required element of a culpable state of mind was shown by Defendant?s failure to implement a litigation hold, which was a violation of their company policy. ?Where Dole?s own policies require retention, and there is testimony documents were not retained but manually deleted by the user, there is a genuine issue for the jury.?

Nature of Case: Employment Law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Abdulahi v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1393 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was fired for failure to lock a gate?which he disputed?during the pendency of separate EEOC investigations into plaintiff?s charges of discrimination and where the at-issue manager claimed to have viewed footage confirming the gate was unlocked but failed to preserve it, the court determined that Defendant was under a duty to preserve (?due to an ongoing EEOC investigation during the applicable time period, Wal-Mart?s own investigation into the alleged employee misconduct including a review of the video footage, and litigation being reasonably foreseeable?), that plaintiff was prejudiced by the loss because neither the at-issue manager?s testimony or emails were equivalents for the video, and that plaintiff showed ?more than mere negligence? in the destruction, the court ordered an adverse inference creating a presumption that ?Wal-Mart?s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff was pretextual and that retaliation was the but-for cause of Plaintiff?s termination? and awarded attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Tag:Spoliation