Spoliation – Page 77 – Electronic Discovery Law

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 Apr. 23, 2010)(Unpublished)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

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., USA, 2010 WL 2652412 (D.N.J. July 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find spoliation had occurred as to specific emails believed by plaintiff to have been withheld or destroyed by defendant absent sufficient evidence but, relying on defendant?s claims of work-product immunity as to a document created in Feb. 2006, found that defendant anticipated litigation as of that time and imposed an adverse inference as to any documents systematically destroyed after that date pursuant to defendant?s policy of maintaining electronic documents for only one month

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2010 WL 3895764 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where forensic investigation of plaintiff?s home computer revealed use of CCleaner only days before the investigation was scheduled, court denied motion for sanctions where the evidence indicated it was unlikely that relevant documents were destroyed and where in light of plaintiff?s denial that she ran or directed someone else to run CCleaner, there was not clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court?s Forensics Order; court denied sanctions despite existence of thousands of ?non-standard? files containing keyword hits which indicated files that had been deleted where plaintiff presented evidence that such files could have been created in the normal use of the computer and where the relevance of the files could not be established for purposes of a spoliation analysis; court denied sanctions for plaintiff?s deletion of emails from her work account where the emails were saved to her personal computer and produced and where defendant?s protests that more emails should have been produced were insufficient to establish intentional spoliation; for plaintiff?s admitted and intentional destruction of audio tapes, the court imposed a $1500 monetary sanction

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

DeMeo v. Kean, 754 F. Supp. 2d 435 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support plaintiff?s claim of willful or intentional spoliation and sufficient direct evidence that defendants? handling of the relevant surveillance footage was ?at least negligent,? the court declined to order terminating sanctions where plaintiff was ?not at a complete loss? in light of alternative evidence to support his claims, but ordered an adverse inference, the language of which will be addressed at trial

Nature of Case: Violations of state constitutional rights and state tort claims arising from an altercation

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

County of Erie v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 482 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents until approximately three and one half years after the lawsuit was initiated and was thus grossly negligent, the court granted an adverse inference and monetary sanctions equal to defendant?s reasonable fess and costs of making the motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Suit alleging that drug companies had inflated average wholesale price for Medicaid drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Diocese of Harrisburg v. Summix Dev. Co., 2010 WL 2034699 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered adverse inference in favor of defendant where plaintiff failed to preserve backup tapes which ?may have contained emails with evidence to support defendants? claims?, despite a duty to do so

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Wright v. City of Salisbury, 2010 WL 126011 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff purposefully arranged a conversation with the mayor, recorded the conversation, preserved the portion relevant to his lawsuit on his website server and then lost the remaining, irrelevant portion as the result of problems with his computer, court denied defendants? motion for spoliation sanctions where defendants failed to establish plaintiff?s bad faith or any prejudice resulting from the loss and where the court found plaintiff?s uncontroverted explanation for the loss ?reasonable and believable?

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape

Clark v. Randalls Food, 317 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for sanctions where, despite defendant?s failure to preserve all relevant portions of a surveillance video tape, the court found the tape would not have revealed information necessary to establish defendant?s knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition at issue and thus, there was no prejudice to plaintiff

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Peal v. Lee, 933 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. Ct. App. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: On appeal from the trial court?s order of dismissal, where the evidence indicated that plaintiff repeatedly utilized scrubbing software to delete data subject to preservation and which the court had ordered the plaintiff to produce and likely discarded other relevant external drives, the appellate court considered the six factors contemplated by the trial court when determining the proper sanction, namely, ?surprise, prejudice, the type of evidence at issue, diligence, timeliness of objection, and good faith? and affirmed the sanction upon finding ?absolutely no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion?

Nature of Case: Defamation and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drives, external drives

Tag:Spoliation