Case Citation: |
ACORN v. County of Nassau, 2009 WL 605859 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2009) |
Nature of Case: |
Housing discrimination |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Where defendants were “grossly negligent” in failing to implement a timely litigation hold but where plaintiffs could not prove the relevance of the information destroyed, court declined to order adverse inference but ordered defendants to pay plaintiff’s reasonable costs for making the motion, including attorney’s fees; where court found defendants “at most, negligent” in failing to preserve electronically stored information, court ordered defendant to supplement their discovery and, if they determined it complete, to provide plaintiffs a letter to that effect |
Case Summary: |
Available |
Attributes: |
Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Records Retention Policy; Spoliation |
|
Case Citation: |
Actionlink, LLC v. Sorgenfrei, 2010 WL 395243 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2010) |
Nature of Case: |
Breach of confidentiality agreement and related claims, independant cause of action for spoliation |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Where issues of material fact existed as to the willfulness of defendant’s destruction of potentially relevant ESI and as to whether such destruction “disrupted” plaintiff’s case, court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to its claim of spoliation and denied plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference as to claims 1 through 4, but indicated its willingness to entertain a motion for an appropriate jury instruction at trial |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Spoliation; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004) |
Nature of Case: |
Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts |
Electronic Data Involved: |
Proprietary information in electronic form |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Court denied motion for default judgment but granted motion for an adverse inference instruction and $20,000 in monetary sanctions where, in advance of court-ordered inspection, defendants deleted from their computers numerous electronic files which had been copied from former employer’s computer systems prior to their resignations, and, after the inspection, defendants failed to comply with court’s order that they delete all of plaintiffs’ files from their computers |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
TRO; Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Mirror Image; Inspection; Spoliation; Deleted Data; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Am. Serv. Mktg., Corp. v. Bushnell, 2009 WL 1870887 (E.D. La. June 25, 2009) |
Nature of Case: |
Federal trademark and state law breach of contract claims |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Where plaintiff alleged defendant violated the preliminary injunction by deleting files he was directed to preserve and return to plaintiff, including using wiping software to delete files hours before producing his computer for inspection, court denied plaintiff’s motion for contempt finding that “without some other indication that [defendant] deliberately deleted files referenced in the preliminary injunction,” plaintiff failed to present the “clear and convincing evidence” required to warrant a finding of contempt |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
TRO; Data Preservation; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Am. Family Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, 2009 WL 982788 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2009) |
Nature of Case: |
Misappropriation of customer information |
Electronic Data Involved: |
Hard drives, ESI |
E-Discovery Issue: |
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 |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
Motion to Compel; Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Spoliation |
|
Case Citation: |
Am. Fast Freight, Inc. v. Nat’l Consol. & Distrib., Inc., 2007 WL 3357694 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2007) |
Nature of Case: |
Breach of contract, unjust enrichment |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI used to answer interrogatories; backup and retention policies |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of: (1) electronic data used to answer interrogatories, (2) information systems organizational charts, (3) policies and records regarding electronic data, electronic backup, electronic data retention and destruction, finding that the requests could lead to relevant evidence regarding what efforts defendant made to preserve ESI, since plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to produce ESI with its initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1) |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
FRCP 26(b)(2)(C) Limitations; Motion to Compel; Data Preservation; Records Retention Policy |
|
Case Citation: |
Anderson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2008 WL 4816620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008) |
Nature of Case: |
Employment discrimination |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI, email |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions for discovery abuse denied where defendant indicated no documents responsive to subpoena existed, where search for documents entailed “paper files, electronic files, hard drives, archives, computers, etc.”, where search was performed in presence of defendant’s paralegal and where defendant hired a contractor to search for archived emails but still found nothing; court found plaintiff’s reliance on “passing statement” regarding email communication at deposition “insufficient to prove that the purported emails ever existed” |
Case Summary: |
Not Available |
Attributes: |
Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com Inc., 2009 WL 185992 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009) |
Nature of Case: |
Copyright infringement |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI stored on server |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Court rejected defendants’ claims that loss of evidence resulted from system limitations or from the “transitory nature” of the data at issue and ordered adverse inference and other sanctions for defendants’ bad faith spoliation where, despite specific requests to preserve data, defendants failed to take action to prevent data from being lost from its servers and where the court determined defendants had taken affirmative steps to hasten the loss of the data and to ensure its permanent deletion |
Case Summary: |
Available |
Attributes: |
FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) “Not Reasonably Accessible”; FRCP 37(e) Safe Harbor; Data Preservation; Records Retention Policy; Spoliation; Deleted Data; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Arista Records, LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 2009 WL 1873589 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009) |
Nature of Case: |
Copyright infringement |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI, emails |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Where plaintiff established defendants’ numerous discovery violations, including wiping the data from seven hard drives, failing to preserve other employee hard drives and emails, providing false responses to discovery requests, and violating the court’s discovery orders, among others, court declined to impose terminating sanctions but precluded defendants from asserting their affirmative defense of protection from liability by the relevant statute’s safe harbor provision |
Case Summary: |
Available |
Attributes: |
Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Spoliation; Deleted Data; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|
Case Citation: |
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb. v. BASF Corp., 2007 WL 3342423 (D. Neb. Nov. 5, 2007) |
Nature of Case: |
Patent and licensing litigation |
Electronic Data Involved: |
ESI |
E-Discovery Issue: |
Where plaintiff failed to implement litigation hold and produced responsive documents some 18 months after deadline set by earlier court order, court ordered plaintiff to (1) conduct comprehensive search and produce responsive documents, (2) certify its compliance, (3) immediately impose a litigation hold on all possibly relevant documents, (4) make certain witnesses available for re-deposition, and (5) pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses in filing the motions; court also ordered plaintiff’s counsel to submmit affidavits detailing what was done to ensure compliance with court orders and suspended case deadlines |
Case Summary: |
Available |
Attributes: |
Motion to Compel; Motion for Sanctions; Data Preservation; Records Retention Policy; Spoliation; Deleted Data; Lack of Cooperation / Inaccurate Representations |
|