Tag:Spoliation

Key Insight: Trial court found Plaintiff committed spoliation when a computer containing key documents was destroyed. Court imposed sanctions of precluding evidence derived from the computer from being presented at trial and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant?s attorney fees and costs. Upon review, Court upheld the spoliation ruling but imposed a mandatory adverse inference instead of the preclusion order. Court agreed that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve, was culpable in the destruction of the evidence, and the data that was destroyed was relevant to the Defendant?s claims. The court further elaborated that Plaintiff?s duty to preserve did not end when the computer allegedly crashed, and that Plaintiff should have made reasonable efforts to recover the data it contained. Saying that the spoliation prejudiced the defendant in a ?severe way? that can only be corrected by a ?substantial sanction,? the Court found that a mandatory adverse inference was the best way to repair the damage to Defendant without being a ?harsh measure given the extent of Plaintiff?s reliance of the documents??

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of “crashed” laptop computer

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction where, after she contemplated filing a lawsuit and retained counsel, plaintiff intentionally deleted Facebook comments that stated she enjoyed working for defendants; however, no sanctions were warranted for plaintiff’s deletion of text messages, as she was not on notice to preserve the texts at the time she deleted them (prior to leaving defendants’ employ)

Nature of Case: Former employee of dental practice sued for sexual harrassment, constructive discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Text messages and social media posts (Facebook comments and photographs)

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

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

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