Spoliation – Page 60 – Electronic Discovery Law

Lab. Corp. of Am. v. United States, —Fed. Cl.—, 2012 WL 6861487 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 21, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought sanctions for defendant?s automatic purge of contents from a relevant website following closure of bidding process, court found defendant was on notice of obligation to preserve by virtue of Federal Acquisition Regulations requiring preservation of ?all the contract documents associated with procurement,? that the United States had been negligent in failing to preserve the information, and that plaintiff was prejudiced and, focusing on the need to impose the least harsh sanction, ordered that defendant would be prohibited from relying upon any secondary evidence regarding what Plaintiff saw on the relevant website (the question of what Plaintiff saw on the website and therefore what Plaintiff knew was a major issue in the case)

Nature of Case: Pre-award bid protest

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of website used to submit bids

Danny Lynn Elec. V. Veolia Es Solid Waste, No. 2:09CV192-MHT, 2012 WL 786843 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where it was unclear that any spoliation had even occurred in light of defendants? backup system, where the court concluded that defendants had not acted in bad faith (but had instead ?expended great effort to insure that plaintiffs receive information from both their live and archived email system ??), and where the degree of prejudice was minimal (assuming spoliation occurred) in light of the significant other discovery that was produced

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Stanfill v. Talton, No. 5:10-CV-255(MTT), 2012 WL 1035385 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant preserved only portions of a relevant video tape and allowed the remainder to be recorded over, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions because plaintiff did not establish that a duty to preserve existed or, if it did, that it was owed to the plaintiff and because the level of culpability with which the video was lost did not support a spoliation sanction in the 11th circuit

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of defendant in jail

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

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

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

Tag:Spoliation