Spoliation – Page 57 – Electronic Discovery Law

EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, No. 10-2696 STA/TMP, 2012 WL 4361449 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Upon Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, court recognized two relevant trigger dates, the second of which expanded the initial scope of preservation, and found that Defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve relevant emails but declined to impose an adverse inference and instead ordered Defendant to bear the cost of restoring 33 backup tapes to determine if relevant information was contained thereon

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Simon Prop. Gourp, Inc. v. Lauria, No. 6:11-cv-01598-Orl-31KRS, 2012 WL 6859404 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant threw laptop containing relevant evidence into the river following specific notice of her obligation to preserve and admitted her intent to destroy evidence, the court recommended entry of default judgment and that Defendant be required to pay Plaintiff?s reasonably attorneys? fees and costs incurred as a result of the spoliation

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Tandem Indus., 485 Fed. Appx. 516 (3d Cir. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering Defendant?s argument for an adverse inference where his former employer failed to produce his former work laptop and files, the court noted that the ?undisputed evidence show[ed] that Colgate destroyed the data on the laptop shortly after Flower?s retirement,? and concluded that: ?When data is destroyed pursuant to normal recordkeeping practices (and in particular when it is destroyed in relation to a major event like an employee?s retirement), no adverse inference is warranted.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop and its files

State Nat?l Ins. Co. v. Cnty. of Camden, No. 08-5128 (NLH)(AMD), 2012 WL 960431 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Award of attorney?s fees for investigation into possibility of spoliation where defendant failed to institute a litigation hold was proper, even where no spoliation was established, because the ?non-breaching party still has suffered damages in the context of attorneys? fees and costs? as a result of the need to perform the investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Matteo v. Kohl?s Dept. Store, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 830 (RJS), 2012 WL 760317 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for an adverse inference for defendant?s loss of potentially relevant video surveillance tape where plaintiff failed to articulate how the tape would depict anything not already represented in available still photos and thus did not establish that the tape was sufficiently relevant to warrant the requested sanction; court ordered plaintiff was entitled to attorneys? fees and costs for the motion and for her efforts to determine whether the accident had been recorded

Nature of Case: Slip and Fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Domanus v. Lewicki, No. 08 C 4922, 2012 WL 2072866 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendants indicated that a relevant hard drive had crashed and been disposed of but that some relevant information had been recovered and where plaintiff was unable to establish that defendants acted in bad faith, court found defendants were grossly negligent in their failure to preserve the relevant hard drive which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff and ordered a ?spoliation charge? allowing but not requiring the jury to determine whether the spoliation warranted an adverse inference; opinion includes comprehensive discussion of relevant law and standards surrounding spoliation

Nature of Case: Racketeering and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

SEC v. Mercury Interactive LLC, No. C 07-02822 WHA, 2012 WL 4466582 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where, the SEC mistakenly deleted documents based on a miscommunication/misunderstanding with the producing party including the mistaken belief that the documents were maintained elsewhere (e.g. by the producing party or its counsel) and thereafter could not produce them when requested, the magistrate judge found that the deletion was not in bad faith and that an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants failed to show the relevance of the missing documents; on appeal the District Court denied defendants? motion for relief from the magistrate judge?s order

Nature of Case: SEC investigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Thermotek, Inc. v. Orthoflex, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-870-D (BF), 2015 WL 4138722 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: For Defendants? discovery failures, including gross negligence in the identification and collection of potentially relevant documents (as a result of an individual defendant?s attempts to identify and collect responsive documents himself) and a ?cavalier attitude towards his discovery obligations? (as evidenced by the ?repeated failure? to conduct a proper document collection? and ?lack of candor regarding their document productions,? e.g., failure to indicate that certain produced emails were not ?the actual transmittal communications? that originally accompanied invoices), the court declined to impose severe sanctions absent evidence of bad faith – although the request was denied without prejudice – and ordered Defendants to pay reasonable expenses and fees incurred by Plaintiff that were attributable to Defendants? discovery misconduct, which Plaintiff represented could exceed $100,000

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, breach of warranty, unfair competition, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including QUickbooks

Edwards v. Ford Motor Corp., 2012 WL 553383 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found defendant?s arguments failed to establish undue burden and reasoned that defendant could not escape its discovery obligations ?because it has chosen to store those documents in a way that makes it difficult for Defendant to search for them,? that defendant?s estimations were based on ?a wider scope of documents than what Plaintiff is seeking,? and that defendant failed to provide sufficient detail to evaluate its argument

Electronic Data Involved: Employer issue laptop and contents

Tag:Spoliation