Spoliation – Page 66 – Electronic Discovery Law

English v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00080-ECR-VPC, 2011 WL 3496092 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions for loss of surveillance tape where duty to preserve arose upon request for the evidence-three months after the fall occurred- and where plaintiff did not show that defendant destroyed or lost the video and photographs with ?culpable intent or in a negligent and possibly reckless manner after Defendant?s duty to preserve the evidence arose.?

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance

Veolia Transp. Servs. v. Evanson, No. CV-10-01392-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5909917 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where, prior to being named a party to the action, defendant failed to preserve ESI (including failing to pay a vendor for imaging her hard drive, which resulted in the vendor’s destruction of the image) despite the receipt of two subpoenas, where the court found the spoliation to be at least willful, and where the circumstances surrounding the spoliation permitted an inference that the information destroyed was highly relevant to the litigation, court found an entry of default was appropriate and set a hearing to determine the appropriate damages

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with a contract, breach of contract, defamation, etc. arising from anonymous emails sent to several parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drive

LW. Matteson, Inc. v. Sevenson Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. 10-CV-168S, 2012 WL 5597653 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Silverman v. United States, 2011 WL 65487 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

Miller v. City of Plymouth, No. 2:09-CV-205 JVB, 2011 WL 1458419 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court upheld ruling that defendants did not destroy video evidence thereby warranting sanctions where plaintiff sought police recordings starting in 2004, but where no retention policy existed during that time period except officers? discretion to retain recording and many of the requested recordings had been recorded over long before plaintiffs? traffic stop; where the relevant officer was not asked to save tape of certain traffic stops until 2010; where plaintiffs? accusations of spoliation assumed that relevant video existed and ?overlooked the significant trouble Defendants have experienced in operating and maintaining their digital systems;? and where defendants had no control over the fact that the systems hard drive recorded over old data

Nature of Case: Claims arising from traffic stop

Electronic Data Involved: Video

State v. L.D.G., No. 65631-1-I, 2011 WL 2176542 (Wash. Ct. App. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where video of defendant?s alleged assault was sent via email to an investigating officer but was automatically deleted by the email program, where the physical copy was ?faulty? and would not play, and where the original tape was destroyed, the court nonetheless found that defendant?s due process rights were not violated where ?the exculpatory value of the video was not apparent and the State did not act in bad faith?

Nature of Case: Assault (criminal)

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

In re Hitachi Television Optical Block Cases, No. 08cv1746 DMS (NLS), 2011 WL 3263781 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Despite the intentional deletion of ESI by defendant?s employee, court declined to impose evidentiary sanctions where there was no showing of prejudice (because the vast majority of deleted ESI was recovered); court also denied request for attorneys? costs and fees pursuant to its inherent authority or under Rule 37

Nature of Case: Putative Class Action alleging a product defect

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Vibra-Tech Eng?rs, Inc. v. Kavalek, No. 08-2646 (JEI/AMD), 2011 WL 6755194 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

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

United States v. Gravely, 2011 WL 112468 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Bureau of Prison?s failure to preserve video footage of hallway outside cell in which the alleged murder of an inmate occurred did not violate the defendant?s constitutional rights where the defendant failed to establish that the footage was materially exculpatory and where the court found the failure to preserve was grossly negligent but not in bad faith

Nature of Case: Defendant charged with murdering another inmate

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Papadoplos v. Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, PC, 21 A.3d 1216 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed sanction of dismissal of plaintiffs? claims for spoliation where plaintiff was found to have undertaken ?knowing and willful? spoliation of ?pertinent? evidence resulting in prejudice to the defendant by destroying relevant hard drives

Nature of Case: Legal Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Tag:Spoliation