Tag:Spoliation

1
Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010)
2
VocalSpace, LLC v. Lorenso, 2010 WL 5247451 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2010)
3
Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)
4
Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
5
Azevedo v. City of Fresno, 2010 WL 2353526 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010)
6
Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)
7
People v. Jobe, 2010 WL 4106708 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2010)
8
Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)
9
Partminer Worldwide, Inc. v. Siliconexpert Techs., Inc., No. 09-cv-00586-MSK-MJW, 2011 WL 587971 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2010)
10
Melendres v. Arpaio, 2010 WL 582189 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2010) (Unpublished)

Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc., 2010 WL 3368654 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010)

Key Insight: Where the defendant was negligent in its failure to preserve potentially relevant emails and attachments by failing to timely issue a litigation hold and where those emails and attachments were lost as the result of an automatic deletion pursuant to defendant?s document retention policy, the court denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions where the court determined the evidence was not ?crucial? to plaintiff?s case and where there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of bad faith; court noted that the ruling did not foreclose the possibility that plaintiff could introduce evidence of defendant?s failure to retain relevant documents at trial

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and attachments

VocalSpace, LLC v. Lorenso, 2010 WL 5247451 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2010)

Key Insight: Where, despite a clear duty to preserve, defendant transferred relevant data to a new server and then erased and sold the old servers, and where, as a result, ?log files? were lost, the court found that the evidence ?falls short? of evidencing bad faith and declined to impose ?death penalty sanctions? but ordered that the admission of evidence of defendants? preservation efforts and evidence destruction was appropriate and ordered that evidence of the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the servers would be allowed at trial

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “log files”

Penberg v. Healthbridge Mgmt., No. 08 CV 1534(SJF), 2010 WL 2787616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s deliberate destruction of electronic documents in bad faith despite a duty to preserve triggered no later than his receipt of defendant?s affirmative defenses, court declined to order dismissal but ordered that plaintiff pay the attorneys fees and costs associated with defendant?s motion and the hiring of its forensics expert who established that spoliation had occurred; court denied motion to amend complaint to include cause of action for spoliation where ?such a claim is not cognizable under New York law?

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination, age discrimination, violations of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of computer

Whitby v. Chertoff, 2010 WL 431974 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for a myriad of alleged violations, including failure to preserve emails and failure to adequately search for responsive ESI, where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of such violations and where the court found defendant?s search was reasonable; court ordered defendant to show cause why it failed to produce emails from certain supervisors in response to the court?s prior order where plaintiff offered evidence that such emails existed

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Azevedo v. City of Fresno, 2010 WL 2353526 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Where two years following the relevant altercation the taser used on plaintiff was sent to the manufacturer for repair, deemed irreparable, and was destroyed without preserving the data contained thereon, the court ruled the spoliation was negligent and declined to impose dispositive sanctions or evidence preclusion, but, noting it was ?troubled? by the data?s destruction, granted permission for plaintiff to file a motion in limine addressing the propriety of a rebuttable inference instruction regarding the spoliation

Nature of Case: Claims arising from detention and arrest of plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff being tasered and injured

Electronic Data Involved: Taser data

Johnson v. Metro. Gov. of Nashville, 2010 WL 3342211 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2010)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for default judgment or an adverse inference where, despite finding that the alleged spoliator had intentionally deleted data in violation of his statutory duty to preserve, the court was presented with no evidence of bad faith in the data?s destruction and nothing more than speculation as to the data?s relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records subject to retention by statute

People v. Jobe, 2010 WL 4106708 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2010)

Key Insight: Trial court did not err by refusing to dismiss based on prosecutions failure to preserve potentially exculpatory video surveillance tape where the tape was never in the possession of the State but rather remained in the possession of the market and where the exculpatory value of the video was not apparent, and thus there was no evidence of bad faith

Nature of Case: Attempted robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance footage

Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Brazeau, 2010 WL 5033310 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2010)

Key Insight: Court rejected objections to the Magistrate Judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied and, addressing plaintiff?s assertions that an evidentiary gap regarding defendant?s alleged misappropriation of information could be filled by adverse inference resulting from defendant?s failure to preserve instant messages, declined to impose such an inference where defendant mistakenly believe that the messages were automatically preserved and, upon learning otherwise, made changes to preserve going forward and thus plaintiffs were unable to show a culpable state of mind and where the alleged spoliation caused little harm in light of the availability of other evidence

Nature of Case: Breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Instant messages

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

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

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.