Spoliation – Page 70 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Greene v. Netsmart Techs., No. CV 08-4971(TCP)(AKT), 2011 WL 2225004 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where there was a delay in plaintiff?s production of relevant evidence and where handwritten notes and certain audio tapes were negligently destroyed but where no unique evidence was ultimately lost because the information was transferred to another source before its destruction, court declined to dismiss the case or to impose an adverse inference but, noting that there was ?clearly a breakdown in communication between Plaintiff and his counsel regarding document preservation and collection,? imposed monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s expenses related to efforts to obtain the relevant evidence, to be shared 50/50 by plaintiff and his counsel; Recommendation adopted by the District Court: 2011 WL 2193399

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Tapes, handwritten notes

S.E.C. v. Brewer, No. 10 C 6932, 2011 WL 3584800 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court held defendants in contempt for failing to preserve documents in compliance with a court order; reasoning that because documents had been destroyed, no monetary sanction would coerce their production, the court ordered that defendants pay the reasonable costs associated with the government having to bring and prosecute the motion

Nature of Case: SEC litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melendres v. Arpaio, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 6740709 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court granted motion for sanctions and imposed permissive adverse inferences as to two categories of information which the court found had been intentionally shredded and/or deleted despite a duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Civil rights class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where a store employee attempted to copy the relevant surveillance footage but was unsuccessful and where the failure was not discovered until after the tape had been overwritten, the court found defendant?s loss of the relevant footage was negligent and imposed an adverse inference that the lost footage would have been unfavorable to the defendant

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video

McCargo v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., No. 09-cv-02889-WYD-KMT, 2011 WL 1638992 (D. Colo. May 2, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where willful, bad faith spoliation of relevant video tapes despite a duty to preserve (triggered by an internal complaint of harassment and receipt of two preservation requests from plaintiff) resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, court ordered sanctions, including an adverse inference allowing (but not requiring) the jury to infer that certain tapes would have been harmful to defendant, an order precluding defendant from the introduction of certain evidence, and a prohibition on cross examination of plaintiff?s witnesses as to certain topics

Nature of Case: Racial discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Video

Vieste v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. C-09-0424 JSW (MSR), 2011 WL 2198257 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to pay sanctions equal to ?reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred [by Plaintiffs] in bringing this motion? where defendants were ordered to provide a detailed explanation of their preservation and collection processes but instead submitted declarations which failed to answer basic questions, answered others with minimal information, and relied on conclusory statements; court denied motion for spoliation sanctions where, despite the court?s ?serious concerns? about a certain custodian?s preservation and collection efforts, spoliation was not established, and as to other specific evidence for which the evidence of spoliation was not clear, ordered that if it had not previously been produced, defendants would be barred from its use

Nature of Case: Brach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Buonauro v. City of Berwyn, No. 08 C 6687, 2011 WL 3754820 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant destroyed relevant audio recordings of City Council meetings despite anticipation of litigation but argued that the destruction was allowed under state law (which controlled the relevant retention period for such recordings), among other things, the court found that the tapes had been destroyed ?with a reckless disregard? of the duty to preserve which constituted bad faith and ordered an adverse inference establishing that if the tapes were available, they would have contained evidence favorable to the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Land Use/Zoning

Electronic Data Involved: Recordings of City Council meetings

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia, —F. Supp. 2d.—, 2011 WL 6879746 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where the general manager of the defendant Red Roof Inn claimed to have attempted to preserve video surveillance footage by asking for it to be copied but alleged that she later discovered that the footage was not copied and that the original footage had been automatically recorded over by that time, the court found, ?based on overwhelming evidence of Red Roof?s cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations,? that defendant?s spoliation was grossly negligent and ordered an adverse inference and that defendant pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and costs associated with the preparation for the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Unlawful detention and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Tag:Spoliation