Spoliation – Page 76 – Electronic Discovery Law

Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSK-MJW, 2011 WL 587971 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District Court declined to adopt recommendation for spoliation sanctions arising from defendant?s alleged bad faith destruction of a relevant email where the email was produced after the recommendation was made and thus ameliorated the need for finding of spoliation; in light of deficiencies revealed in defendants? search for responsive materials, court adopted recommendation that a forensic search of defendants? hard drives be undertaken, but reduced the scope of that search from all employees to those who ?received directly or indirectly, the customer information? at issue

Nature of Case: Claims arising from former employee?s alleged sharing of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant?s failure to communicate plaintiff?s preservation request and failure to implement a litigation hold resulted in the destruction of data, court ordered adverse inference related to the destruction of a particular category of evidence but delayed the imposition of sanctions for the destruction of email where efforts to retrieve those emails from backup systems were ongoing and ordered defendant to submit an explanation of their retrieval efforts with specific topics to be addressed

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hardcopy evidence

United States v. Laurent, 2010 WL 2404419 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010):

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For the erasure of relevant surveillance tape pursuant to department practice, the trial court properly denied defendant?s request for dismissal absent evidence of destruction in bad faith because the evidence was not exculpatory but rather ?potentially useful?; for the delayed disclosure of the existence and subsequent destruction of the tape, trial court properly denied request for sanctions absent a showing of prejudice; trial court properly denied request for an adverse inference absent evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Criminal drug charges

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

Cencast Servs., LP v. United States, 2010 WL 3488806 (Fed. Cl. Ct. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where data was lost as the result of the theft of a laptop and where hard copy documents were accidentally shredded despite efforts to preserve them safely, the court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference where defendant was ?at most? negligent and an adverse inference would be ?disproportionate to the offense?, where evidence was presented that indicated the requested presumption arising from the adverse inference was untrue, and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate significant prejudice as the result of the loss

Nature of Case: Tax related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of laptop, hard copy

Oto Software, Inc. v. Highwall Techs., LLC, 2010 WL 3842434 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion for sanctions where defendant Highwall breached its obligation to preserve information related to the underlying royalty dispute following receipt of a letter which triggered the duty to preserve and ordered that discovery be re-opened and that defendant Highwall bear the costs but also found that the duty to preserve documents related to the development of allegedly infringing software was not triggered until the filing of the complaint and that no spoliation had occurred; court found purchaser of Highwall?s assets during pendency of the royalty dispute had no duty to preserve where the software at issue was excluded from purchaser?s acquisition

Nature of Case: Royalty dispute, copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Herbert v. Baker, 2010 WL 5330050 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: District court reversed the order of the Magistrate Judge compelling production of certain videotape where defendant presented evidence that the video in question was not responsive to plaintiff?s narrow request; court denied sanctions where different and relevant video was automatically overwritten before the lawsuit was initiated, where plaintiff presented no evidence of defendant?s notice of litigation, and where the lost video was not the only evidence to support plaintiff?s position

Nature of Case: Claims arising from police department’s alleged failure to prevent an intoxicated person from driving which resulted in death

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Crown Castle USA, Inc. v. Fred A. Nudd Corp., 2010 WL 1286366 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found destruction or loss of documents resulting from failure to issue a litigation hold grossly negligent but declined to recommend dismissal or an adverse inference where the record did not reveal actual or likely prejudice and held open defendant?s option to renew their request following re-depositions of the relevant custodian, the cost of which plaintiff was to bear; for the late production of responsive documents, court recommended additional depositions and for plaintiff to bear the cost and for plaintiff to bear defendants? costs associated with the instant motions; magistrate judge?s recommendations were affirmed by the district court in their entirety 2010 WL 4027780 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged defects in cellular towers designed and manufactured by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 2010 WL 2560455 (D. Neb. June 24, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff presented evidence purportedly showing defendant?s intentional destruction of relevant evidence, court found an imminent threat of irreparable harm to plaintiff existed absent an order to prevent the destruction and that such an order was not likely to cause significant harm to third parties and thus granted plaintiff?s motion for a temporary restraining order preventing such destruction and requiring collection and preservation of relevant evidence, among other things

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Piccone v. Town of Webster, 2010 WL 3516581 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a duty to preserve at the time of defendants? destruction of ESI; court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish the relevance of the emails at issue or any prejudice resulting from plaintiff?s failure to produce certain emails, particularly where defendant possessed its own copies; court denied defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s computer but acknowledged their right to explore plaintiff?s preservation practices at deposition and ordered plaintiff to make a mirror image of her hard drive to be left in the custody of her attorney to assure preservation of ESI

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drive

State v. Absher, 2010 WL 3860501 (N.C. App. Ct. Oct. 5, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where police department failed to preserve video surveillance footage containing images of the alleged assault at issue despite a specific written request for preservation by defendants? counsel and instead altered the tape to remove significant portions and then destroyed the original, superior court did not err in dismissing the charges against defendants because of the irreparable prejudice caused by the loss of the video tape

Nature of Case: Criminal/Assault

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Tag:Spoliation