Tag:Spoliation

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

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s failure to collect information regarding its utilization of the at-issue software, the court refused to grant spoliation sanctions upon finding that defendant did not have an obligation to compile information related to its use of the at-issue software where such information was not typically collected in the usual course of business and where parties are only required to produce documents that exist and have no obligation to create documents to support their adversary?s theory of the case; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant?s migration from the at-issue software to another, the court declined to impose sanctions citing the fact that plaintiff had itself instructed defendant to destroy all copies of the at-issue software and that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that it had requested defendant halt its migration prior to filing a motion for sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Court found Target was at least grossly negligent for failing to preserve all portions of relevant surveillance footage (capturing Plaintiff?s fall and the surrounding circumstances) and thus imposed an adverse inference and monetary sanctions, but declined to strike Target?s answer or preclude use of the at-issue video excerpts and photographs

Nature of Case: Personal injury/slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for an adverse inference and monetary sanctions related to its allegations of spoliation where the court ?did not agree? that plaintiff was ?grossly negligent? noting that plaintiff ?had in place ? a comprehensive standard document preservation policy, issued both verbal and written litigation hold notices, preserved backup tapes of emails from before commencement, and confirmed that no custodian had deleted any documents related to this matter? and where, the court determined that ?[w]hile there may have been some shortcomings in [plaintiff?s] document retention protocol, it was, at most, negligent? and that the ?discretionary presumption articulated in Residential Funding Corp [306 F.3d 99] d[id] not apply in any event?; court further declared that the spoliation motion failed ?on the ?inability [of Nektar] to adduce evidence suggesting the existence, let alone destruction , of relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI