Spoliation – Page 72 – Electronic Discovery Law

State v. Durham, 2010 WL 1254355 (Ohio App. Ct. Apr. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed his conviction and argued the State?s failure to preserve videotape depicting a struggle between police and defendant was a violation of due process, court found the videotape was not subject to production pursuant to Brady absent evidence that it contained ?materially exculpatory evidence?, and that absent evidence of bad faith, defendant could not show a due process violation arising from the destruction of ?potentially useful? evidence

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Booker v. Mass. Dept. of Public Health, 612 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in failing to issue an adverse inference instruction where plaintiff failed to establish the evidentiary foundation for such an instruction, namely that the party accused of spoliation was 1) aware of the pending claim, and 2) aware of the document?s relevance to that claim

Nature of Case: Retaliation, torotuous interference with contractual employment relations

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 3365921 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant admitted that information regarding potential class members had been deleted pursuant to its regular information management practice and indicated that some (but not all) information could be retrieved from backup tapes, the court acknowledged defendant?s duty to preserve but reasoned the culpability for such deletions was ?somewhat lessened? because no one had requested that defendant alter is retention policies and because the deletions occurred ?pursuant to the regular operation? of those policies and determined that no conclusions could be reached on the record provided but that ?the court may consider imposing a remedy in any findings regarding the fairness of settlement?

Nature of Case: Class action challenging certain fees assessed on American Express-issued gift cards

Electronic Data Involved: Customer-identifying information

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2010 WL 145786 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to grant spoliation sanctions for the destruction of metadata resulting from defendant?s continued use of his company-issued laptop where such use was not prohibited by the temporary restraining order and was not shown to destroy relevant evidence and where there was no evidence of defendant?s bad faith

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England d/b/a Verizon Mass., 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment as sanction for discovery violations where evidence indicated that defendants lied to the court regarding its record keeping practices and the timing of their alleged ?loss? of financial records and withheld and destroyed financial records, including intentionally wiping relevant evidence from a hard drive using scrubbing software

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from defendants’ failure to pay access charges for services provided

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Univ. Sports Publ?ns Co. v. Playmakers Media Co., 2010 WL 2802322 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the issue before the court was whether defendant had intentionally accessed plaintiff?s database without authorization, court relied on an adverse inference arising from defendant?s intentional destruction of a laptop which would have provided key evidence and held that a genuine issue of material fact existed such that summary judgment was not appropriate

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global Naps, Inc., 624 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding of contempt and order to pay plaintiffs? attorney?s fees and costs was no abuse of discretion where the court?s order to disclose financial assets was ?perfectly clear? and where there was ?clear and convincing? evidence of defendants? non-compliance and that defendants were not diligent in their attempts to comply; trial court did not abuse discretion in granting default judgment against all defendants in light of willful and bad faith discovery violations, including intentional deletion of ESI and lying about the existence and location of documents which ?formed a pattern of ?prolonged and vexatious obstruction?, and where lesser sanctions would be ineffective and defendants were aware of the consequences of non-compliance with their discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants’ failure to pay for special access servers ordered from plaintiff

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

DeMeo v. City of Albany, 901 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court did not abuse discretion when it denied petitioner?s motion for contempt for respondent?s violation of the court?s preservation order where petitioner failed to establish the prejudice resulting from the loss and failed to establish the violation was knowing and willful where respondent testified he initially preserved but then lost the relevant video tape when, as he ?surmised?, his spouse cleaned his office without his knowledge ?and placed the hard drive back into rotation with the others, thus taping over the pertinent portions?

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleging assault commenced action seeking to preserve surveillance video

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Brown v. Kia Motors Corp., 2010 WL 135127 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for the destruction of plaintiff?s wife?s (a non-party) camera and memory card and plaintiff?s resulting inability to provide the ?digital files? created when the relevant photographs were taken where ?the camera and memory stick [did] not appear to have ever been within plaintiff?s control? and where ?it [did] not appear that the camera and memory stick were suppressed or withheld, but rather both were destroyed in an accident? and thus the elements necessary for an adverse inference were not met

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Digital files related to photographs alleged to be relevant to “the condition of the seatlbelt”

Shlala v. Catholic Health & Human Servs., 2010 WL 1655869 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 23, 2010)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff?s claim of fraudulent concealment arising from the destruction of the hard drive plaintiff utilized while employed by defendant where plaintiff failed to specifically request the preservation or production of the computer?s contents until three years after he was terminated (despite filing a complaint and requesting discovery) and where plaintiff failed to establish any of the five elements necessary to support an action for fraudulent concealment, including failing to establish defendants? duty to preserve, the materiality of the evidence destroyed, and the inability to obtain the evidence from another source, among other things

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on hard drive utilized by plaintiff while employed by defendant

Tag:Spoliation