Spoliation – Page 90 – Electronic Discovery Law

Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for discovery violations related to defendant?s responses to discovery and its inadequate 30(b)(6) deponent, but declined to award spoliation sanction of adverse inference where defendants failed to preserve emails and could not identify blind copy recipients or explain who wrote the emails or to whom they were intended to be sent but where plaintiff failed to show injury resulting from the emails and could not establish that access to the emails or their recipient lists would have been favorable to that showing; court noted, ?the evidence in this case is easily distinguishable from the destroyed evidence in cases where courts have imposed spoliation sanctions?

Nature of Case: False advertising, tortious interference, unfair competition and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Blind copy email recipients

U.S. v. Bunty, 2008 WL 2371211, (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where government agents altered the ?last accessed? date of relevant files by opening the files to investigate their contents, court denied defendant?s motion for spoliation sanctions upon finding that 1) the agents used the least intrusive means of determining the content of the disks in good faith and 2) the defendant suffered ?minimal? prejudice as a result of the alteration

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Last accessed data

Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.N.J. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to preserve DVR footage by not recording it on to a VHS tape before the footage was overwritten on the DVR hard drive, district court modified magistrate judge’s order, finding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s request for adverse inference charge for defendants’ failure to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Prisoner asserted ? 1983 action against various prison defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Digital video recording showing altercation between prisoner and prison staff

In re Rosenthal, 2008 WL 983702 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that District Attorney?s admitted deletion of more than 2,500 emails sought by subpoena constituted ?unexcused, egregious conduct,? court found him in contempt of court and imposed $18,900 in sanctions (representing attorneys? fees); court further found that actions of attorney representing DA in the proceedings were ?unprincipled and dilatory, at best, constituting a deliberate indifference to the Court’s Orders and subpoena,? held him in contempt of court, and ordered that $5,000 of the $18,900 in sanctions awarded against DA was jointly and severally awarded against his attorney

Nature of Case: Civil rights suit against Harris County, Texas, the Harris County Sheriff and several Harris County deputies

Electronic Data Involved: Deleted emails of the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas

Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2008 WL 4830752 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where late production of documents resulted in some prejudice to defendants but where prejudice was minor in light of limited relevance of the documents produced and their limited value to defendants? case and where defendants failed to show that documents missing from production were destroyed rather than ?simply lost? or a significant degree of resulting prejudice, court declined to impose dismissal or adverse inference but ordered monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37; monetary sanctions in the amount of $205,507.53 were subsequently ordered (Keithley v. Homestore.com, 2009 WL 55953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009))

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Thermodyne Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion in limine for adverse inference for alleged spoliation, despite evidence that files were deleted, where plaintiff offered only conjecture regarding the relevance of the allegedly spoliated documents, where defendant had the means to recover the allegedly spoliated contents of the files and did not, and where defendant failed to show plaintiff acted deliberately with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of the data

Nature of Case: Theft of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dept., 2008 WL 142869 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Deciding various motions in limine, court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence relating to destruction of surveillance videotape to demonstrate that adverse inference instruction was not barred as a matter of law; court further granted plaintiff?s motion to re-open discovery for limited purpose of conducting focused three-hour deposition of particular individual who was most knowledgeable about defendant?s video surveillance system

Nature of Case: Lebanese nightclub patron brought civil rights action against municipality, police department, and certain employees and owners of nightclub

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape

Kinnally v. Rogers Corp., 2008 WL 4850116 (D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs offered only an inference that evidence was destroyed based on ?the mere lack of evidence? produced by defendant and where plaintiffs failed to take timely action to address discovery disputes, court denied plaintiffs? motion for an adverse inference based on spoliation; addressing plaintiffs? argument that defendant?s failure to issue a timely litigation hold notice resulted in destruction of evidence, court noted, ?[w]hile a party must ?put in place a ?litigation hold? to ensure the preservation of relevant documents, there is no requirement that it must be written.? [citation omitted]

Nature of Case: Age discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 185649 (Bankr. D. Haw. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Although expert fees and expenses were not taxable as costs under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920, court ruled that, since most if not all of the work performed by Hawaiian Airlines’ computer forensics expert was directly attributable to Mesa’s spoliation of evidence (which was subject of October 30, 2007 decision imposing certain evidentiary sanctions against Mesa), the expert’s fees and expenses of approximately $80,000 would be awarded as an additional spoliation sanction

Nature of Case: Airline undergoing reorganization alleged that prospective investor (Mesa) breached confidentiality agreement and misused confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Confidential information stored on secure website

Peterson v. Tri-Country Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 2008 WL 723521 (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where emails and other documents stored on backup records were destroyed after complaint was filed, but reasons defendant began destroying such outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes at that time were (1) to reduce storage costs of up to $4,000 per year and (2) because data on tapes was no longer readable, and decision to destroy the unusable tapes not made by anyone who had anything to do with plaintiff, court concluded evidence did not support drawing any adverse inference from defendant?s intentional destruction of potentially probative evidence

Nature of Case: Claim for violation of FMLA

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on outdated mainframe reel-to-reel tapes

Tag:Spoliation