Spoliation – Page 80 – Electronic Discovery Law

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 2009 WL 1098461 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant accessed relevant files after being placed on notice of litigation and thus spoliated metadata, but where defendant?s testimony regarding her lack of knowledge that accessing the files would destroy metadata was credible and where plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing bad faith, plaintiffs? motion for adverse inference was denied

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of restrictive covenant contracts, tortious interference with customer relationships, among others

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 3059090 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District court did not abuse discretion in ordering default judgment where court found defendant deliberately destroyed computer servers, and with it certain ESI that had been requested by the plaintiff, where such destruction demonstrated the necessary ?willfulness, bad faith and fault? to support such a sanction, where the prejudice caused by the failure to produce the ESI was ?not excused? by the fact that plaintiff already possessed some of the destroyed documents, and where less severe sanctions were previously awarded and defendant had been warned of the possibility of stricter sanctions in future

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on server

DeBakker v. Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics E., 2009 WL 5031319 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, to obtain an adverse inference the moving party must establish ?that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed,? and where plaintiff failed to establish the individual defendant?s control of the spoliated medical notes and failed to establish the facility?s duty to preserve, court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions; in so holding, court declined to find a duty to preserve based on the facility?s own document retention policy and stated, ?the mere existence of a document retention policy does not give rise to a duty to preserve every document generated under that policy. The duty to preserve arises only when a party becomes ?reasonably aware of the possibility of litigation

Nature of Case: Action arising from allegations that defective leg brace caused a fall resulting in permanent injury

Electronic Data Involved: Medical notes

Mintel Int?l Group, Ltd. v. Neerghen, 2009 WL 1033357 (N.D. Ill Apr. 17, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: District Court found Magistrate Judge?s decisions denying plaintiff?s motions to compel third-party?s production of forensic image of its computer systems or a report from those systems ?were neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law? where Magistrate denied the motions in light of plaintiffs lack of diligence, contradictory opinions from experts, and factual evidence indicating a minimal amount of relevant data on third-party?s system and where Magistrate was therefore within the scope of her discretion

Nature of Case: Violation of Trade Secrets Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act and terms of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, forensic image of hard drive

Panos v. Timco Engine Ctr., Inc., 2009 WL 1658416 (N.C. Ct. App. June 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Appellate court affirmed trial court?s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff despite defendant?s accusations of spoliation and request for an adverse inference instruction where precedent established that the imposition of an adverse inference was permissive and not mandatory and that it was improper to base the grant or denial of summary judgment on evidence of spoliation, among other principles of law, and where defendant failed to identify any information destroyed by plaintiff that could support it?s claims and presented no independent evidence in support of its claims or alleged damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Paradise v. Al Copeland Invs., Inc., 22 So.3d 1018 (La. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering an adverse presumption in favor of plainitff for defendant?s loss of relevant computer evidence by discarding a hard drive after it crashed where defendant offered a reasonable explanation for the loss; court?s reasoning also relied upon evidence that the communications sought by plaintiff were available from an alternative source

Nature of Case: Class action for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive

Bensel v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 263 F.R.D. 150(D.N.J. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite acknowledging that ?defendants should have moved more quickly to place litigation holds on the routine destruction of certain documents and electronic data,? the court found that plaintiffs failed to identify any specific document that was lost or destroyed, failed to establish destruction of documents in bad faith and failed to specify any prejudice arising from the alleged bad behavior and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions; in so holding, court noted plaintiff?s reliance on speculation and ?vague statements? which did not ?rise to the specificity level required by the Third Circuit to impose sanctions or even make a finding of spoliation.?

Nature of Case: Allegations of breach of duty of fair representation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant discarded a hard drive that had been ordered produced for inspection, court rejected evidence of defendant?s lack of ?know-how? or ?resources? to maintain the hard drive in light of the lack of expense or effort required beyond physical retention and held defendant in contempt of court; court also found grounds for contempt where evidence ordered destroyed or turned over to plaintiffs was discovered on defendants? hard drives upon forensic inspection; where plaintiffs presented ?clear and convincing evidence? that defendants intentionally destroyed evidence by discarding relevant hard drives subject to a duty to preserve, court found spoliation had occurred and ordered an adverse inference instruction but declined to order default judgment where prejudice did not render plaintiffs unable to prove their case

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of customer information

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Bolger v. D.C., 608 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants admitted destroying relevant radio communications but argued that such destruction was not sanctionable because it unintentionally occurred as the result of a routine operation of the police communication systems and because the information destroyed was of minimal relevance, court found that defendants were under an obligation to preserve and had (at least) negligently destroyed the radio communications, but declined to order an adverse inference because plaintiff?s proffer of evidence regarding the communications? relevance and the proper inference from their destruction was ?too speculative?

Nature of Case: ? 1983 Action against D.C. police for constitutional violations

Electronic Data Involved: Radio communications (“radio runs”)

Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng?g & Constr., Inc. 2009 WL 2982901 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel upon finding that defendant ?did not timely comply with its discovery obligations? including failing to timely produce a hard drive, a laptop computer, and other relevant documents and failing to produce a privilege log, among other things, and ordered defendant to produce all relevant ESI and to provide additional information regarding the location and collection of additional ESI, including the identification of sources no longer available; court deferred ruling on alleged spoliation but awarded plaintiff $17,375.00 in attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Spoliation