Key Insight: The court denied defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court?s order allowing forensic examination of the at issue hard drive by a neutral forensic examiner where defendant failed to meet the standard for reconsideration
Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs admitted to fabricating evidence and failed to comply with court orders to produce certain hard drives and other data storage and instead argued, among other things, that the hard drives etc. were in possession of an unrelated foreign corporation (ANZ International) and that ANZ USA was not involved in the discovery violations (including the fabrication of evidence), the court rejected such arguments upon establishing the connection between ANZ Int. and ANZ USA and ordered that plaintiffs? claims be dismissed
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Fabricated evidence, hard drives, other storage devices
Key Insight: For defendant?s delayed production of certain relevant documents, including emails, court granted plaintiff permission to re-depose certain witnesses but denied his request for evidentiary and exclusionary sanctions; court found defendant had breached its duty to preserve when it destroyed an audio tape of school board meeting pursuant to the District?s normal retention policy but that culpability and prejudice were not significant and ordered that plaintiff be allowed to question a certain deponent regarding the meeting, but no other sanctions; court found defendants breached duty of preservation as to certain emails, but that prejudice was minimal, and declined to allow forensic examination of the District?s computers, but ordered that defendants bear the reasonable costs of plaintiff?s motion and reply
Nature of Case: wrongful termination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, audio tape of board meeting
Key Insight: Where plaintiff and counsel failed to disclose the existence of relevant audio recordings (of secretly recorded conversations) and attempted to conceal their existence (including by false certifications pursuant to Rule 26(g)), but where defendant was allowed to cure the prejudice through additional discovery, court ordered plaintiff and counsel to bear joint responsibility for payment of defendant?s expenses related to the delay and concealment; for destruction of relevant audio recordings with a ?sufficiently culpable? state of mind, court imposed an adverse inference instruction
Nature of Case: Contract dispute
Electronic Data Involved: Audio recordings
Key Insight: Where plaintiff altered and deleted emails and discarded potentially relevant hard drives the court undertook a substantial analysis of the relevant legal standards surrounding spoliation and, upon consideration of those standards, imposed two monetary sanctions requiring the plaintiff to pay for the reasonable costs and fees arising from his failure to produce a hard drive as he had been directed to do by the court and to pay for Boeing?s costs ?directly connected with the investigation and discovery of the altered emails?; the court also dismissed, with prejudice, plaintiff?s claim of retaliation
Nature of Case: Violations of False Claims Act
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives
Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendant?s loss of server logs where the court determined that the logs were of minimal relevance to plaintiff?s claims and where the logs ?rolled over? in the usual course of business prior to the trigger of defendant?s duty to preserve
Nature of Case: Violation of FMLA and ADA, employment discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress
Electronic Data Involved: Server logs
Key Insight: Where video of defendant?s alleged destruction of evidence while in a holding cell was automatically recorded over pursuant to the department?s standard policy and was not preserved because none of the officers involved in the investigation realized the images from cameras in the cells were recorded (as opposed to merely ?stream[ed]? to allow observation), court found no bad faith and thus no violation of due process arising from destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence (as opposed to exculpatory evidence)
Nature of Case: Criminal (sex trafficking)
Electronic Data Involved: Video of defendant while in holding cell
Key Insight: Dismissal of trial for destruction of video tape of defendant?s traffic stop was reversed where appellate court concluded the lost tape did not rise to the level of constitutional materiality and was instead ?at best potentially exculpatory? and where there was no evidence that the tape was destroyed in bad faith
Nature of Case: Criminal possession
Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of traffic stop
Key Insight: Court imposed sanctions, including preclusion of evidence/witnesses, an adverse inference instruction (upon plaintiffs? request) and payment of attorney?s costs and fees for defendant?s discovery violations, including repeated failure to produce evidence despite court orders, and ?loss? of a flash drive and its contents under circumstances which supported a finding of gross negligence or intentional spoliation; court invited plaintiffs to seek sanctions against defense counsel, too, for counsel?s egregious violations of his duties, including failure to issue a litigation hold, failure to be candid regarding the loss of evidence, and failure to ensure compliance with client?s discovery obligations, among others
Nature of Case: Employment litigation (wages)
Electronic Data Involved: Flash drive containing original payroll records for purpose of analyzing metadata
Key Insight: Where ?severe spoliation sanctions, such as an adverse inference instruction, are only appropriate upon a showing of bad faith,? the circuit court affirmed the lower court?s denial of plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where there was no evidence that the accused party intentionally destroyed the relevant video tape ?or acted with bad faith or gross negligence in respect to it?
Nature of Case: False arrest, defamation
Electronic Data Involved: Videotape
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.