Spoliation – Page 52 – Electronic Discovery Law

Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 10 C 6292, 2013 WL 422868 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon a motion to clarify regarding Plaintiff?s prior motion for sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve backup tapes, the court confirmed that Plaintiff could recover attorney?s fees and expenses ?reasonably incurred as a result of the failure to preserve backup tapes and the resulting discovery? (even where the follow-up discovery necessitated by the failure to preserve was not fruitful), but made clear that the recovery would be limited and that fees and expenses related to the filing and briefing of the motion for sanctions would not be awarded

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Kirgan v. FCA LLC, No. 10-1392, 2013 WL 1500708 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where an employee of Defendant first denied he kept a calendar and then testified that he kept a daily electronic calendar but routinely deleted information after a day had passed and that he had continued such deletions even after being told that the entries were sought by the plaintiff in discovery, the court found that Defendant was culpable for the employee?s actions and for its own failure to notify its employees of the duty to preserve and imposed sanctions including an adverse inference, preclusion of the use of certain evidence, and monetary sanctions equal to double the amount incurred for preparation of the sanctions motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Calendar entries

Stream Cos., Inc. v. Windward Adver., No. 12-cv-4549, 2013 WL 3761281 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge addressed accusations of spoliation and violation of court orders and found that monetary sanctions were appropriate for defendants? spoliation of emails which were deleted (as evidenced by forensic investigation) after the duty of preservation arose but declined to find spoliation had occurred as to defendants? laptops or external storage devices where Plaintiff presented little more than evidence of Defendants? lack of credibility; magistrate judge imposed sanctions for violation of court?s orders where Defendants made unilateral decisions not to produce certain electronic devices but gave numerous assurances that everything had been produced; magistrate judge found Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of defendants? contempt of the court?s discovery orders and preliminary injunction order and certified certain underlying facts for consideration by the District Court

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Copyright Act, PA Wiretap Act, state trade secret law, duty of loyalty

Electronic Data Involved: Email, storage devices (iPad, iPhone, thumb drives), personal computers

Braun v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. B234212, 2013 WL 520030 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to substantiate his privacy objections and provided the court with no information to weigh against defendant?s stated need for discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the production of plaintiff?s home computer, which contained relevant photographic evidence; trial court did abuse its discretion when it ordered terminating sanctions for plaintiff?s intentional deletion of allegedly private information before producing his computer for inspection where Toyota offered only speculation as justification for such a serious sanction (e.g., ??we will never know? what was destroyed?) and where plaintiff did produce more than 13,000 photographs for inspection; case was remanded for consideration of serious sanctions short of terminating plaintiff?s case

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Selected contents of home computer, photographs

Simms v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc., 2013 WL 49756 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In action arising from roller coaster accident, court denied motion to impose sanctions for failure to preserve potentially relevant photographs on roller coaster?s ?integrated photography system,? where there was no evidence presented explaining how long the photos were stored in the system (although Defendant ?appear[ed] to argue? that had been erased as early as two days after the accident) where there was no evidence of willful conduct, and where the prejudice was limited based on the availability of other evidence regarding whether other riders were wearing hats on the ride?an important question in the case

Nature of Case: Personal Injury (roller coaster accident)

Electronic Data Involved: Photographs

Hixson v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-00871-RCJ-PAL, 2013 WL 3677203 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: No sanctions for Defendant?s failure to produce a particular relevant email where the email was subject to Defendant?s automatic deletion policy and where the court ?was satisfied? that the email was in fact automatically deleted before Defendant was on notice that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

Nature of Case: Hostile Work Environment

Electronic Data Involved: Email subject to automatic deletion policy

Process Am., Inc. v. Cynergy Holdings, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 772(BMC), 2013 WL 9447569 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff did not institute a written litigation hold despite its duty to preserve having arisen when it threatened to sue defendants, and, instead of producing the original of a particular thumb drive as ordered by the court, plaintiff copied contents of original thumb drive onto another (used) thumb drive and then deleted irrelevant files from thumb drive before producing drive to defendant, court found plaintiff was merely negligent and did not act in bad faith or with an intention of destroying or withholding relevant evidence; court declined to impose terminating sanctions or an adverse inference instruction given that defendant did not demonstrate severe prejudice, but ordered plaintiff to reimburse defendant for one-half of its costs, including attorneys? fees and expert costs, that it incurred in connection with litigating the spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Lawsuit arising out of the collapse of a commercial relationship between the parties relating to credit card processing services

Electronic Data Involved: Thumb drive, email, spreadsheets

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-cv58, 2013 WL 458532 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: For spoliation addressed in E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-cv58, 2011 WL 2966862 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), court awarded DuPont attorneys? fees in the amount of $2,428,733.90 and costs in the amount of $2,068,313.60; costs/expenses included those paid to three outside vendors, including for forensic analysis services and for providing contract attorneys to review and analyze documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, theft of business information, conspiracy, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gilley v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 3:10-CV-251, 2013 WL 1701066 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to preserve digital images which she claimed she took with her cell phone and her daughter?s cell phone and which she claimed to have received from her daughter via email and later forwarded to her attorney (resulting in several electronic copies of the image(s)), the court found that plaintiff had the obligation to preserve the evidence, that she knew or should have known that the images were relevant, that the images and metadata were in fact relevant, and that sanctions were appropriate and thus imposed a permissive adverse inference

Nature of Case: wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Digital images

Jackson v. Target Corp., No. 12-12190, 2013 WL 3771354 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant preserved a portion of the relevant surveillance video following Plaintiff?s fall but, upon being ordered to preserve substantially more, could not comply because the video had been automatically overwritten by that time and could not be recovered, the court declined to impose an adverse inference absent evidence of a culpable mindset

Nature of Case: Premises liability (slip and fall)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Tag:Spoliation