Tag:Spoliation

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

Key Insight: Denying plaintiffs? motion for sanctions the court distinguished the cases of Lee v. Max Int., LLC, 638 F.3d 1318 (10th Cir. 2011) and Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Utah 2009), found the defendant had not acted in bad faith, and rejected plaintiffs assertions that the duty to preserve arose from obligations to maintain information pursuant to corporate policy or an obligation to the government; noting that most relevant documents were from the 1990?s, the court also acknowledged that even where a preservation obligation exists, the passage of time can result in the inadvertent destruction or misplacement of evidence and the fading of human memories

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified in opinion

Key Insight: Where video surveillance tape was destroyed in contravention of duty to preserve, the court nonetheless denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions (an adverse inference) where it determined that there was no prejudice to plaintiff because defendants identified the three officers/employees who processed plaintiff on the night of the allegedly wrongful arrest and because defendants conceded that the initial booking processes indicated that plaintiff was not the person sought by the relevant warrant

Nature of Case: Violation of civil rights (wrongful arrest) and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Key Insight: Reviewing District Court?s denial of spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion, Circuit Court found that the at-issue information should have been preserved and was intentionally destroyed but upheld the denial of sanctions based on plaintiffs? inability to establish relevance, a necessary element of the test for determining whether sanctions are appropriate

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Survey results)

Key Insight: In a brief discussion of spoliation, the court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions where, despite the fact that it ?seemed clear that there was some loss of evidence ? in the form of email and/or ?instant messages? ? at a time [Plaintiff] knew litigation was imminent,? the evidence suggested that the loss was inadvertent, there was no claim of bad faith or evidence to support such a finding, defendant?s claims of prejudice were largely speculative and defendant did not aggressively pursue the issue of spoliation; court?s analysis stated that ?in these circumstances? (referencing apparent inadvertence of the loss and lack of a claim of bad faith), ?the court looks to the culpability of those involved and the relevance of the proof to the issues at hand?

Nature of Case: Action to recover payment for propane transfers based on conversion and unjust enrichment theories

Electronic Data Involved: Email and/or instant messages

Key Insight: Where Defendant reinstalled the operating system on his personal laptop two days after his first deposition (where he was informed a request for ESI would be forthcoming) claiming that he did so to ensure that he did not possess Plaintiff?s proprietary information, and where Defendant had previously deleted the information on a relevant flash drive, the court found Defendant had acted intentionally and that Plaintiff had been prejudiced by the loss and ordered an adverse inference allowing, but not requiring, the jury to infer that the deleted information was unfavorable to Defendant and also ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff?s attorneys? fees and costs connected with bringing the motion for sanctions; court acknowledged applicability of agency law in determining whether to impose sanctions against a party for spoliation by its employees but declined to do so in the present case

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s motion for sanctions court laid out relevant law of spoliation and found that defendants had a duty to preserve relevant evidence but declined to impose sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish that allegedly spoliated emails were relevant; where plaintiff failed to establish that additional SERT video existed or was relevant to his claims; and where plaintiff failed to establish prejudice from unproduced booking video, particularly where he presented conflicting assertions regarding its relevance (where he at once moved to preclude presentation of evidence related to the underlying offense or arrest and sought sanctions for the booking video?s spoliation)

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, video