Spoliation – Page 59 – Electronic Discovery Law

Curcio v. Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2012 WL 3236645 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court noted 2d circuit?s rejection of premise that failure to issue a litigation hold constitutes gross negligence and declined to impose an adverse inference but did impose monetary sanctions for individual?s failure to preserve her own handwritten notes upon finding that she acted in a negligent manner in preserving those notes; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions against ?Roosevelt Defendants? (the District and the Board) for failure to preserve audio tapes that were contaminated with lead and asbestos while in storage and thus discarded ?through no fault? of the Defendants and imposed no sanctions for late production of relevant information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes, handwritten notes, miscellaneous

Hunter v. State of Delaware, —A.3d—, 2012 WL 5349395 (Del. Oct. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the police department?s failure to preserve relevant surveillance footage of events at the police station following defendant?s arrest (by allowing it to be automatically recorded over), the Supreme Court of Delaware determined that the lost recording was not dispositive evidence and that the criminal trial was therefore not ?fundamentally unfair? and thus held that the trial court properly determined that a missing evidence instruction was a sufficient remedy and that fundamental fairness did not require a judgment on acquittal on the Assault and Resisting Arrest charges

Nature of Case: Criminal: Assault and Resisting Arrest

Electronic Data Involved: Video footage

YCB Int?l, Inc. v. UCF Trading Co., No. 09-CV-7221, 2012 WL 3069683 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs failed to take appropriate steps to preserve information, including failing to suspend their document destruction policy and failing to issue a litigation hold, which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents (but, as the court concluded, not ESI), the court declined to impose drastic sanctions but recommended that the jury be instructed about the failure to preserve (but not instructed to draw any inferences based on that destruction) and recommended that plaintiffs be ordered to pay $1000 to defendant to ?partially compensate? it for attorneys? fees incurred by its motion and to pay $1000 to the court clerk

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy inspection reports

Phillip M. Adam & Assocs. V. Dell Computer Corp., No. 2012-1238, 2013 WL 1092719 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court found that the district court erred in imposing an adverse inference for failure to preserve absent evidence of bad faith and thus reversed the district court?s imposition of an adverse inference sanction

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Moore v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. C 07-03850 SI, 2012 WL 669531 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted in part defendant?s motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference where the court determined plaintiff had a duty to preserve and that the deliberate wiping of his hard drive was in bad faith but declined to impose monetary sanctions or dismissal where plaintiff?s actions were not found to be sufficiently egregious, where plaintiff was forthcoming about the spoliation and his reasons (to protect personal and privileged information contained on the work-issued laptop), and where defendant had a substantial amount of the deleted material on backup tapes, etc. because of its backup practices

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI from laptop

Atkinson v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-01901-JMC (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where relevant documents were discovered upon forensic examination and evidence indicated they had been modified, but not what the modifications were, the court reasoned that the documents had not been destroyed (because they were discovered on the hard drive) and that Plaintiffs did not dispute defendant?s argument that the modifications could have been the result of merely saving the documents?without making other alterations?and thus declined to grant plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Emploment Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., No. CV 10-6938 SVW (PLA), 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Defendant (through counsel) revealed on third day of trial that prior representations were inaccurate and that certain discovery had not been produced, or even searched for, court continued trial and ordered appointment of expert to conduct search of Defendant?s servers and produce responsive materials and later found that cost of expert totaling $168,045, to be paid by Defendant, was a sufficient sanction for failure to timely produce relevant documents; where plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for Defendant?s failure to timely issue a litigation and failure to sufficiently distribute that hold or to follow up with its employees as to their obligations, but where evidence of spoliation of relevant evidence was minimal, court imposed only monetary sanctions

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

State v. Fox, No. 11CA3302, 2012 WL 4946436 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: ?[B]ecause appellant failed to show that the video contained materially exculpatory evidence or that the state acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the evidence, appellant did not demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. Thus, the trial court did not err by overruling his motion to dismiss.?

Nature of Case: Criminal: assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Grabenstein v. Arrow Elecs., Inc., No. 10-cv-02348-MSK-KLM, 2012 WL 1388595 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions where plaintiff was unable to support her allegation that additional relevant emails existed that were not produced and where, despite a violation of the duty to preserve ?personnel or employment records? pursuant to federal law, the only copies of relevant emails that were proven to exist had been provided to plaintiff and plaintiff provided no evidence that the emails (that were not preserved in violation of federal law) were destroyed in bad faith or other than in the normal course of business

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Adkins v. Wolever, —F.3d—, 2012 WL 3711433 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where District Court held that because defendant, a prison guard, did not have control over the preservation of relevant surveillance footage there was no basis to establish his culpability for its loss and thus spoliation sanctions were not warranted, the appellate court acknowledged that other circuits had imposed sanctions for a prison?s loss of relevant footage but determined the case law did not require a finding of negligence for such loss and that, even if the appellate court were to disagree with the District Court?s determination, the conclusion was not ?clearly erroneous?; court spoke to concerns that this would provide carte blanche for prisons? destruction of such footage, but found that imposing a burden upon individual defendant?s to ensure that their employer (the prison) was preserving evidentiary records for every incident with a prisoner was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Action brought by prisoner for injury allegedly inflicted by prison guard

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Tag:Spoliation