Tag:Spoliation

1
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)
2
In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 3172642 (Bankr. D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007)
3
Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)
4
Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)
5
Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)
6
Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)
7
APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)
8
Williams v. ACS Consultant Co., Inc., 2007 WL 2822777 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2007)
9
Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)
10
Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Neovi, Inc., 2007 WL 1989752 (S.D. Ohio July 9, 2007)

Key Insight: After conducting de novo review of the matters raised by defendant’s objections to magistrate judge’s May 22, 2007 order, district court adopted magistrate judge’s recommended sanction (i.e., denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and imposing monetary sanctions) and ordered defendant to file answer to complaint within 10 days

Nature of Case: UCC claims arising from defendant’s Internet-based check service

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 3172642 (Bankr. D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Finding that Mesa?s CFO deleted files that Mesa had duty to preserve, used special software to wipe hard drives and changed computer’s clock in an attempt to conceal what he had done, and that Mesa could have taken reasonable, inexpensive and non-burdensome steps that would have prevented or mitigated the consequences of CFO’s destruction of evidence, court concluded that adverse inference was appropriate and made certain findings of fact which were binding and conclusive for all purposes in the case

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

Hunts Point Realty Corp. v. Pacifico, 2007 WL 2304859 (N.Y. Sup. July 24, 2007)

Key Insight: Although court concluded that plaintiff had not adequately proven damages under any theory and thus damage award was zero, court found that defendant’s “unabashed flaunting of this Court’s preservation order” in failing to preserve emails resulted in additional work by plaintiffs’ counsel and the court, and as sanction, court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for all work done by counsel related to defendant’s failure to preserve email

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Motown Record Co. v. DePietro, 2007 WL 1725604 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2007)

Key Insight: Finding that defendant had destroyed her computer and modem equipment with knowledge of her duty to preserve relevant evidence and in an attempt to protect herself from plaintiffs’ claims, court declined to enter default judgment and would instead: (1) preclude her from offering certain evidence and arguments at trial, and (2) give an adverse inference instruction to the jury

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Individual defendant’s computer and cable modem

Rodgers v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 257714 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for ultimate sanction of dismissal based upon defendant’s loss of videotape, since there was no proof of willful or bad faith destruction and marginal relevance of missing videotape was such that plaintiff’s ability to prosecute the case was not meaningfully compromised

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance videotape showing unpleasant encounter between plaintiff and customer which preceded plaintiff’s termination

Armamburu v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 2020181 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant asserted that certain data was ?dumped? from its computer system on an ?automatic and periodic basis,? but failed to provide a date or time period when such data was deleted or state whether a diligent effort was made to obtain such information in either electronic or paper format, court found that further discovery was necessary before it could determine whether spoliation sanctions were appropriate and ordered defendant to provide information on when alleged ?data dump? occurred, what information was deleted, and whether backup tapes and/or paper records exist that may provide requested information

Nature of Case: Putative class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information pertaining to the number of prospective class members, including their names and addresses

APC Filtration, Inc. v. Becker, 2007 WL 4569721 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Court approved plaintiff’s fee petition and awarded $79,606 in attorneys’ fees and $19,856 in expenses, for a total of $99,462, as sanction for defendant’s intentional destruction of laptop computer

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of employment contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer

Williams v. ACS Consultant Co., Inc., 2007 WL 2822777 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Although spoliation was shown based on individual plaintiff’s failure to return laptop to defendant for approximately seven months after court first ordered him to do so, destruction of files and other information and use of file-deletion and free-space wiping products on laptop, court denied motion to dismiss complaint as spoliation sanction because prejudice to defendant was not established — three months of discovery remained and it was not clear that defendant would not be able to obtain much of the evidence sought

Nature of Case: Racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment and wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Employer-issued laptop

Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendants used “Window Washer” disk scrubbing software on hard drives just days before they were to be turned over to forensic expert, and also performed “mass deletions” of electronic files, court found that defendants’ intentional actions evidenced a serious disregard for the judicial process and had prejudiced plaintiff; court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff and shifted to defendants plaintiff’s costs, attorney’s fees, and computer expert’s fees relating to motions for sanctions and forensic imaging and recovery of defendants’ hard drives; jury trial to proceed solely on issue of plaintiff’s damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Hendricks v. Smartvideo Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 220160 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defense motion for dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to preserve laptop’s hard drive, since there was no evidence that plaintiff’s conduct was intentional or in bad faith — plaintiff explained that hard drive was replaced after laptop crashed and before defendant’s discovery requests were received

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop hard drive

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