Tag:Spoliation

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Defendant?s case where there was no evidence that Defendant?s document retention policy (which gave employees discretion to determine which emails should be saved and deleted the remainder after 90days) was operated in bad faith and where the potentially relevant emails were already deleted by the time suit was filed, thus lessening (if not eliminating) the impact of the delay in issuing a litigation hold

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment action brought by promissory note maker and guarantors against note holder

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Key Insight: Concluding that trial court did not err in giving permissive adverse inference instruction where defendant failed to suspend its email retention policy (whereby all emails and related electronic documents were retained for only one month) at the point when patent infringement litigation became reasonably foreseeable, i.e., the earliest date asserted by defendant for work product protection in its privilege log, appellate court commented: “The destruction of documents in the course of preparation for litigation has no entitlement to judicial protection, and need not be concealed from the jury.”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

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

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