Spoliation – Page 61 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Tracy v. NVR, Inc., No. 04-CV-6541L, 2012 WL 1067889 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs sought to compel production of defendant?s litigation hold and a list of its recipients, court identified the underlying question as whether defendant?s duty to preserve extended to all potential opt-in plaintiffs and found that plaintiffs? significant delay in moving for conditional certification and the indirect nature of the evidence sought distinguished the case from Pippins v. KPMG and that plaintiffs failed to make the necessary preliminary showing of spoliation (which would justify production of the litigation hold notice) because they did not establish ?that documents that should have been preserved? were lost or destroyed; court granted defendant?s motion for sanctions for opt-in plaintiff?s spoliation of hard copy evidence (originals of a calendar indicating her daily activities, two disparate copies of which had been produced) and ordered that she be precluded from testifying as to her daily work activities during a three year period

Nature of Case: FLSA Class action

Electronic Data Involved: litigation hold notice, hard copy calendar

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg. Sales Practices, and Prods. Liability Litig., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 2146319 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where Toyota conducted inspection of relevant Event Data Recorder without providing plaintiffs the opportunity to be present but where there was no showing of actual alteration or deletion of relevant data, court declined to impose terminating sanctions and ordered a cautionary instruction be given to the jury; court also credited plaintiff?s evidence regarding a dispute surrounding the location of a plastic piece in plaintiffs? engine, which was allegedly moved by Toyota representatives during their inspection, and ordered an evidentiary instruction stating that the Toyota representatives testimony regarding the plastic piece should be regarded with ?greater caution? than that of other witnesses

Nature of Case: Personal injury/product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Event Data Recorder data and plastic piece in engine

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

Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-890 TS, 2012 WL 1302288 (D. Utah Apr. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

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

Tag:Spoliation