Tag:Spoliation

Key Insight: Addressing defendant?s motion for sanctions, the court found that defendant?s CEO and outside counsel ?should have done more to ensure that relevant evidence was preserved? and that defendant had been prejudiced where certain documents had been lost due to plaintiff?s reliance on a verbal ?100 percent document retention policy? (i.e. the company deleted nothing) and because of plaintiff?s failure to inform its accountants of the need to preserve, but declined to impose drastic sanctions and ordered that the jury be informed of plaintiff?s failure to preserve certain relevant information

Nature of Case: Allegations of anticompetitive acts

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Court declined to impose spoliation sanctions for destruction of original microfiche where the destruction occurred in a somewhat unique situation ( the crate of microfiche was destroyed after becoming an ?orphan sitting in a warehouse? after being shipped back to England) and where ?nothing of value was lost? because the originals had been digitally copied

Electronic Data Involved: Original microfiche

Key Insight: Where pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy the form at issue was subject to retention until February 4, 2007, and where defendant provided notice of his claims on February 1, 2007, including his assertions of defendant?s negligence, court found destruction of the relevant form warranted an adverse inference establishing that defendant negligently loaded the trailer involved in the underlying accident

Nature of Case: Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions absent evidence of fraud or bad faith and where the court did not find sufficient evidence of prejudice

Nature of Case: Breach of employment agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Key Insight: Although the allegedly spoliated information was likely relevant, court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s pre-litigation letter expressing dissatisfaction with defendant?s work did not put defendants on notice that the at-issue data was relevant and should be preserved and where there was no evidence that defendant intended to destroy the data but rather that the information was lost because the computer on which it was stored did not save the information and instead deleted it before it began a new job; court also noted that defendants had provided the requested information upon plaintiff?s request prior to filing of litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: WinOPS data