Spoliation – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Stirling Bridge, LLC v. Porter, 2009 WL 125549 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 7, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion in granting defendant?s motion for summary judgment on the issue of destruction of evidence where defendant offered uncontroverted evidence that his partner destroyed computers, without defendant?s involvement, because they were ?obsolete? and where plaintiffs failed to ?raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding [defendant?s] responsibility for [his partner?s] destruction of the computer and other electronic evidence?

Nature of Case: Legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and securities fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Computers (hard drives)

Reeves v. Case W. Univ., 2009 WL 3242049 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where it remained ?entirely unclear? that defendant performed a ?full and thorough search? for responsive ESI, court ordered defendant to perform a ?comprehensive examination of all electronic storage? and to provide certification of the search to plaintiff; as sanction for ?failing to even search for certain evidence,? court prohibited defendant from re-filing its motion for summary judgment as to two of plaintiff?s claims

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Canton v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 2058908 (V.I. July 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to order adverse inference for destruction/loss of surveillance video where plaintiff failed to establish that such a video existed and that defendant therefore had a duty to preserve it; court ordered adverse inference for defendant?s inability to produce photographs upon finding defendant did not take ?reasonable precautions? to preserve the evidence despite knowing that litigation was reasonably foreseeable

State v. Ross, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where transcript of online chat was erased from law enforcement hard drive following ?computer problems? but where there was no evidence of bad faith, appellate court affirmed denial of defendant?s motion for production of the hard drive and reasoned that State could authenticate the printed transcripts by offering testimony from personal knowledge that the document was what it was claimed to be pursuant to ER 901(B)(1) or through the presentation of ?evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result? pursuant to ER 901(B)(9)

Nature of Case: Attemtped unlawful sexual conduct with a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, online chat transcripts

Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assoc., Inc., 2009 WL 1258970 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, despite plaintiffs? failure to specify each technology individually, plaintiffs? preservation order was deemed sufficient because the instructions to preserve utilized terminology customarily used within the company to refer a category of technologies, including those at issue, court nonetheless ordered parties to negotiate stipulated Preservation Order going forward; court ordered monetary sanctions for failure to preserve prior employee?s notebook, but declined to order sanctions for plaintiff?s alleged instructions to employees to delete emails absent evidence that employees willfully deleted emails after the preservation order was issued and where one employee at issue testified that emails subject to preservation were not among those deleted and where a second employee at issue deleted emails prior to duty to preserve and subsequently located back up drive with substantial number of non-email documents

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Ripley v. D.C., 2009 WL 1905070 (D.D.C. July 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants repeatedly represented they had searched for and produced all relevant and available emails and also represented that some documents had been deleted ?per agency practice? before notice of litigation, but where defendants later found backup tapes containing thousands of responsive emails following plaintiff?s filing of a motion for sanctions, court rejected the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) noting that ?defendants were unable to provide electronically stored information only because they had not searched all of the available files.?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Estrada v. Dehli Cmty. Ctr., 2009 WL 3359194 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court imposed terminating sanctions against plaintiff and monetary sanctions upon counsel for egregious discovery abuses; client?s abuses included refusal to produce relevant information despite agreement and/or a court order to do so and willful installation of a new operating system on a computer subject to preservation and production, among other things; counsel?s abuses included delay in responding to discovery, misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel, and refusal to produce relevant information despite a court order

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination/ sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Spoliation