Spoliation – Page 84 – Electronic Discovery Law

Commonwealth v. Lanana, 7 Pa. D. & C. 5th 225 (2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where school?s IT manager discovered child pornography on defendant?s personal computer and where upon opening those files the IT manager altered relevant metadata, appellate court upheld trial court?s denial of defendant?s motion for spoliation sanctions because the police did not commit the alleged destruction, because there was no evidence of the IT manager?s bad faith, because both parties had access to the same information, because defendant had an opportunity to explore the loss at trial and because defendant stipulated that the files were child pornography

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Dilts v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P., 2009 WL 3161362 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to record data stored on crane?s computer following death of two construction workers, but where plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their allegations that the data was manually destroyed or that the failure to photograph the display was unreasonable and where defendants presented evidence that data could not be downloaded from the crane?s computer and plaintiff failed to request the information downloaded in the first place, court declined plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Negligence resulting in death

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on crane’s internal computer

Vagenos v. LDG Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 09-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff destroyed the original recording of an automated telephone message that was the subject of the litigation but sought to offer an alleged duplicate recording, court denied defendant?s motion to preclude such an offering where defendant failed to establish the requisite ?bad faith? necessary under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) and because the evidence was vital to plaintiff?s case but ordered an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that ?the destroyed portion of the message contained information harmful to plaintiff?s case? where plaintiff and plaintiff?s counsel (who did not instruct plaintiff of his duty to preserve and was responsible for creating the duplicate recording) failed to uphold their duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation

Nature of Case: Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Electronic Data Involved: Recording of automated telephone message

Brown v. ICF Int., 2009 WL 7127925 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was ordered to produce a relevant recording and instead submitted an affidavit indicating that after a ?good faith search? she determined she was not in possession of the recording and had been mistaken in her representations to the contrary, the court granted defendant?s motion and ordered evidentiary sanctions for violating the court?s order to produce the recording after noting plaintiff?s failure to assert the possibility that she was not in possession of the recording prior to the entry of such an order; where plaintiff destroyed her handwritten notes after transcribing portions thereof, the court granted defendant?s request for an adverse inference

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination and retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Audio recording, handwritten notes

Nieves v. Kmart Corp., 2009 WL 1605623 (V.I. June 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion for a spoliation instruction where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly spoliated videotape ever existed and where a witness testified at deposition that since he didn?t keep the videotape after checking it, it means no film was made of the relevant incident

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

GW Equity LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2009 WL 62168 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court adopted magistrate judge?s recommendations and denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions for intentional spoliation of website content, despite defendants’ failure to suspend its policy allowing content to be edited, where evidence showed that no edits were made to the content at issue and thus plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Defamation

Electronic Data Involved: Website contents

Lucas v. Old Navy, LLC, 2009 WL 1172710 (M.D. La. Apr. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued she was entitled to a presumption that defendant had constructive notice of the hanger on the floor that allegedly caused her injuries because defendant failed to preserve the surveillance tape which would have proven such notice, but where plaintiff failed to request preservation of the relevant tape and failed to notify defendant of her intent to sue resulting in the loss of the tape from the system after 60 days, and where plaintiff offered no evidence of defendant?s bad faith, court declined to rely on such a presumption and granted defendant?s motion for summary judgment

Nature of Case: Slip and fall

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Elec. Machinery Enters., Inc. v. Hunt. Constr. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 2710266 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite finding defendants ?intentionally destroyed relevant documents at a time when litigation was foreseeable? the court declined to award sanctions where it was not established the documents were ?critical for proving? plaintiff?s case, a prerequisite for such sanctions under Florida law

Nature of Case: Action for breach of contract, spoliation, breach if implied warranties

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and ESI

Sue v. Milyard, 2009 WL 2424435 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where videotape of relevant incident was stored on computer hard drive until the drive became full and then automatically recorded over and where plaintiff presented no evidence of bad faith or that defendants received any request for preservation prior to the automatic function resulting in loss, court found sanctions were not warranted and denied plaintiff?s motion for reconsideration of his motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape of relevant incident

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)

Tag:Spoliation