Key Insight: Magistrate Judge denied motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff?s possession of some emails that arguably should have been produced by defendant but were not was ?somewhat probative? but fell short of establishing that other relevant emails were created by defendant and then destroyed; upheld on appeal
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where questions remained as to whether plaintiff deleted files from his work laptop in bad faith before returning it, whether defendant suffered any prejudice as a result and whether the information sought to be forensically retrieved was likely to be of any substantial benefit, court denied defendant?s motion to compel restoration of the laptop at plaintiff?s expense, but concluded that defendant could retrieve the information at its own costs if it so chose
Nature of Case: Claims alleging failure to pay bonus payment
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
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
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
Key Insight: Despite noting that it was ?undisputed? that plaintiffs? witnesses did not modify their practice of ?deleting most emails within a short time of receiving them? even after they reasonably anticipated litigation, the court declined to impose an adverse inference where the record supported a finding that the witnesses ?destroyed the emails in the ordinary course of business unmotivated by any bad faith.?
Nature of Case: Fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
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 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
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
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.