Spoliation – Page 59 – Electronic Discovery Law

Biselli v Cnty. of Ventura, No. CV 09-08694 CAS (EX), 2012 WL 2061688 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant had an obligation to preserve relevant video and in fact ?acknowledged? plaintiff?s request to preserve the video by objecting to it, court held that defendant had an obligation to preserve the requested evidence ?including a duty to deactivate any automatic purging policy? that defendant claimed resulted in the loss and ordered an adverse inference at trial with the potential for additional sanctions to be imposed later

Nature of Case: Claims resulting from suicide of inmate

Electronic Data Involved: surveillance video

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

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

DMAC LLC v. City of Peekskill, No. 09 Civ. 5093 (GAY), 2012 WL 4459290 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and ordered an adverse inference for trial where defendant was grossly negligent in its destruction of relevant emails (as proven by Plaintiff?s receipt of relevant emails from third parties that should have been in defendant?s possession, for example, and defendant?s failure to dispute the existence of certain emails which were relevant to plaintiff?s claims but which were not produced); court found defendant was ?at least negligent? in its failure to preserve (and later found that defendant was grossly negligent) where the city had no formal email retention policy and instead relied on its employees to determine what to save: ?Because the City has effectively conceded that it had a duty to preserve the e-mails in question, its failure to maintain a formal e-mail retention policy was at least negligent.?

Nature of Case: Violation of constitutionally protected property rights based on Stop Work Order

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Yeung v. Dickman, No. 1 CA-CV 11-0735 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Noting that the ?offending party?s degree of fault and the corresponding prejudice suffered by the non-offending party? were the ?most important? factors for consideration when determining whether to impose sanctions, court denied request for spoliation sanctions where the information Plaintiff alleged was spoliated was not relevant to the issues in the case, where Plaintiff merely speculated that the lost information would support his case, and where Plaintiff could have obtained the information from third parties but chose not to

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives containing certain allegedly relevant communications

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

Tag:Spoliation