Tag:Spoliation

1
Elec. Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy, 2009 WL 1717383 (Cal. Ct. App. June 19, 2009) (Unpublished)
2
Global Ampersand, LLC v. Crown Eng?g & Constr., Inc. 2009 WL 2982901 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009)
3
Gillet v. MI Farm Bureau, 2009 WL 4981193 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009) (Unpublished)
4
East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)
5
Kotler v. Woods, 2009 WL 1011701 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009)
6
Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
7
Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)
8
Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)
9
In re Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1211399 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2009)
10
Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 WL 1212809 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)

Elec. Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy, 2009 WL 1717383 (Cal. Ct. App. June 19, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where terminating sanctions were ordered against defendants for the deliberate deletion/destruction of electronically stored information using wiping software but where the subsequent judgment of the trial court was reversed on appeal and remanded and where the trial court thereafter granted plaintiff?s motion for terminating sanctions, appellate court ruled that trial court did not err in granting plaintiff?s motion where the court?s previous discovery orders to produce information remained in effect and where defendants continued in their violation of such order by failing to produce relevant discovery because they had destroyed it; court stated: ?A continuing discovery violation does not end if the responding party is permanently unable to comply because that party intentionally destroyed the material it was ordered to produce.?

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, intentional interference with economic relationships, etc.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

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

Gillet v. MI Farm Bureau, 2009 WL 4981193 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2009) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted an ?extremely significant? number of data files from his personal computer despite notice of his obligation to preserve and was thus sanctioned by dismissal of his case, trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiff?s actions were not in good faith, particularly in light of the number of files deleted, and properly considered alternative sanctions before imposing terminating sanctions, despite the trial judge?s failure to ?expressly recite? those alternatives on the record; court?s denial of attorneys? fees/monetary sanctions was no abuse of discretion where the court ?dealt appropriately? with plaintiff?s conduct by dismissing the case and where the refusal to impose additional sanctions was ?not unreasoned or unprincipled?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

East Coast Brokers and Packers, Inc. v. Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., 2009 WL 361281 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2009)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion for sanctions arising from plaintiff?s alleged spoliation of ?pack data? (related to the number of tomatoes picked and packaged) where the alleged spoliation consisted of plaintiff?s entry of additional information to the ?pack data? following commencement of litigation but where the court found that no spoliation had occurred because the source of the newly added information was preserved, because the data was ?added as opposed to changed,? and because defendant had the right of cross examination at trial

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kotler v. Woods, 2009 WL 1011701 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009)

Key Insight: Where petitioner challenged his conviction on grounds that the state destroyed material evidence in the form of cassette tapes containing the dictation of a detective?s report and therefore violated his due process rights, court concluded petitioner failed to demonstrate a Brady violation where petitioner failed to show that the evidence would have been favorable to him and would have altered the outcome of his trial and where the trial court gave an adverse inference instruction related to the loss of the tapes that also made a change in the outcome unlikely

Nature of Case: Petition for writ of habeus corpus

Electronic Data Involved: Cassette tapes

Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated defendant wiped her computer?s hard drive days before producing it for inspection but where evidence also indicated that the wiping occurred prior to receipt of the subpoena seeking the computer?s production, appellate court acknowledged a reasonable basis to suspect intentional spoliation but found that there was not sufficiently compelling evidence to require such a finding and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Scalera v. Electrograph Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3126637 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions, despite finding that defendant violated its duty to preserve and negligently destroyed potentially relevant ESI, where plaintiff produced nothing except speculation in support of her claim that the destroyed emails would have benefited her position.

Nature of Case: Failure to accomodate

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Gutierrez-Bonilla v. Target Corp., 2009 WL 5062116 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the allegedly destroyed surveillance tape and where, even had the existence of such a tape been established, plaintiff failed to serve any request for preservation, court found plaintiff failed to establish a duty of preservation or that the allegedly spoliated evidence could have supported her case; court also found plaintiff failed to establish defendants? culpable state of mind where, in light of the lack of notice of preservation, the tape would have been recycled in the usual course of business and denied plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Video surveillance tape

In re Atl. Marine Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2009 WL 1211399 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2009)

Key Insight: Where court ordered company to obtain waivers from employees allowing their personal email providers to release certain communications for production but where the email providers indicated their inability to provide those communications, court declined to order adverse inference where there was no evidence to indicate company acted in bad faith or purposefully lost or destroyed the emails

Electronic Data Involved: Email from employees’ personal accounts

Technical Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 WL 1212809 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2009)

Key Insight: Where forensic examiner revealed evidence of defendants? data deletion to plaintiffs while bound by stipulated order requiring results of the examination to be reported to defendants first, but where the court found the stipulated order was focused on the discovery of actual data rather than the lack of data and that the examiner was therefore not in violation of the order, court reserved ruling on examiner?s motion for attorney?s fees stating that while the examiner?s actions did not rise to the level of contempt, they were not free from taint and that such actions ?[gave] the Court pause about granting [the examiner?s] motion

Nature of Case: Dispute over sales commissions

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.