Spoliation – Page 79 – Electronic Discovery Law

Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 2010 WL 3172236 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendants were unable to produce an electronic version of an interview summary available in hard copy and where the creator of the summary testified that after printing the summary, she could not find the electronic version on her computer and hypothesized that perhaps it had inadvertently been saved in a temporary file, the court could not find that the duty to preserve had been willfully breached or that defendant had been prejudiced by the loss, particularly where a second summary of the same interview was produced and where the person who was interviewed was available for deposition and trial, and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Violations of Title VII and the Family and Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic version of document produced only in hard copy

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3893709 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: For CFO?s intentional destruction of evidence to defeat litigation despite a duty to preserve, the district court judge adopted the magistrate judge?s recommendation and imposed a $100,000 fine and found that more drastic sanctions were not warranted where the resulting prejudice was mitigated by the availability of all the defendants and other witnesses for questioning

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Antonio v. Sec. Servs. Of Am., LLC, 2010 WL 2858252 (D. Md. July 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to preserve relevant computers during its consolidation of operations and failed to preserve data during conversion of it?s IT network, the district court overruled defendant?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding that the spoliation was ?more than grossly negligent? and the imposition of an adverse inference but sustained defendant?s objections ?to the extent that the finding that the spoliation was more than grossly negligent [was] based on defendant?s limited production of emails, missing personnel record, and untimeliness in participating in discovery ? actions that ?do not indicated willful or intentional spoliation of evidence?

Electronic Data Involved: Computers/hard drives, ESI

Jacob v. City of N.Y., 2009 WL 383752 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied motion for fees and costs related to 30(b)(6) deposition despite acknowledgment that deposition was unnecessary but for city?s delay in locating copies of 911 tapes following original?s destruction by NYPD; court indicated familiarity with NYPD?s destruction of 911 tapes and, while recognizing unique concerns such as storage space, nonetheless indicated the need to balance that concern with the value of tape recorded evidence; court urged city?s counsel to consider measures to ensure preservation of tapes once litigation is anticipated

Nature of Case: Constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: 911 call tapes

Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 334 (D. Conn. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where consulting firm retained by plaintiff destroyed soil samples and related electronic data absent implementation of a litigation hold and where plaintiff was obligated to preserve such evidence in light of the possibility of litigation and its knowledge of the evidence?s relevance to that litigation, court attributed the consulting firm?s destruction of the samples and data to plaintiff based upon ?the close ties? between them and imposed a sanction precluding the admission of evidence based on the destroyed evidence; court found that defendant?s failure to conduct its own testing upon notice of impending remediation to the relevant property did not constitute a disclaimer of defendant?s interest in plaintiff?s pre-remediation soil samples, especially where remediation destroyed defendant?s ability to verify plaintiff?s testing results or conduct additional tests and where defendant was not aware that the existing data in plaintiff?s possession would be destroyed

Nature of Case: Cost recovery action

Electronic Data Involved: Soil samples and related electronic data

Telequest Int?l Corp. v. Dedicated Business Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 690996 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where forensic examination of defendant?s hard drive revealed the deletion of electronic evidence using wiping software and where at the time of the deletion defendant was subject to a duty to preserve, court declined to impose default judgment but ordered an adverse inference and monetary sanctions in an amount to be determined

Nature of Case: Claims of fraud, misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, contents of hard drive

MRT, Inc. v. Vounckx, 299 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Affirming the trial court?s judgment, appellate court found appellees did not fail to comply with discovery obligations or conceal facts, despite failure to initially identify or search backup tapes, where appellant failed to initially request production of backup tapes and where appellees later offered evidence of the unreasonableness of such a request upon court?s order to detail search efforts – court?s analysis also focused on the parties? failure to confer regarding electronic discovery pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 196.4; distinguishing Zubulake, court also found no duty to preserve pre-2000 backup tapes where appellants failed to establish that appellees knew or should have known that the tapes contained ?material and relevant evidence? and thus failed to establish appellees? duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Misrepresentations and fraudulent inducement

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC, 657 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff settled its claim of intentional spoliation against one defendant no longer in the case but failed to bring that claim against the defendants that remained and where the evidence was undisputed that the defendant who had settled all claims and was no longer a party to the litigation had maintained exclusive custody and control of the at-issue hard drives and plaintiff offered no evidence of the remaining defendants? involvement in destroying the relevant hard drives, the court held that the remaining defendants could not be sanctioned under either Ohio law or Federal law

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 2009 WL 430401 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 19, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, despite acknowledgement that requested information could ?slightly bolster plaintiff?s claims,? where the requests were either ?overly broad, unnecessarily cumulative, or plainly irrelevant? and where plaintiff did not indicate the information was necessary to survive the pending motion for summary judgment; court also denied motion for spoliation sanctions for destruction of certain data and surveillance video where plaintiff did not show resulting prejudice, but left open the possibility of an adverse inference instruction if defendant chose to reference the allegedly spoliated information at trial

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, surveillance tape

Plunk v. Village of Elwood, Ill., 2009 WL 1444436 (N.D. Ill. May 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where audio tape of council meeting was lost despite duty to preserve and where defendants failed to rebut plaintiffs? allegation that the tape was erased or replaced beyond an unsupported assertion of inadvertence, court precluded defendants from relying on occurrences at the meeting and ordered an adverse inferences to the jury; where evidence indicated computers subject to preservation were defragged repeatedly, and perhaps erased intentionally, and where defendants failed to preserve 6 hard drives despite agreeing do so, court ordered jury to be informed of failure to preserve, that defendants were precluded from arguing that the absence of evidence supported their contentions, and that the jury would be given permission to draw an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Civil rights action

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tape, hard drives

Tag:Spoliation