-
No Spoliation Where Documents Destroyed Per Document Retention Policy Before Litigation Hold
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant had spoliated documents in Giuliani v. Springfield Township, et al., Civil Action No. 10-7518 (E.D.Penn. June 9, 2015). Plaintiff owned land within the Defendant township and alleged that Defendant’s zoning decisions violated Plaintiff’s civil rights violations. The zoning dispute concluded in 2009, and Plaintiff
-
Forensic Mirror Image of Hard Drive Ordered Due To Failure to Institute Timely Litigation Hold
In Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13cv1332 (RNC) (D. Conn. May 19, 2015), Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to issue a timely litigation hold and that the plaintiff ESI production was “careless and indifferent.” Defendants presented evidence that the Plaintiff e-commerce company anticipated filing the lawsuit
-
Two Attorney-Defendants Found to Have Intentionally Spoliated Electronic Data
In the business litigation HMS Holdings Corp. v. Arendt, et al., 2015 NY Slip Op 50750(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany County, May 19, 2015), the New York Supreme Court in Albany County considered Plaintiffs’ accusations that two individual Defendants had spoliated electronic data. At the outset of the litigation, the parties had
-
ESI Disputes Continue In Lawsuit Alleging $350 Million in Damages
The ESI disputes that have plagued the parties and the court in Procaps v. Patheon Inc., Case No. 12-24356-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D.Fla. April 24, 2015) continued last month when Plaintiff Procaps refused to allow Defendant Patheon to depose its court-ordered computer forensics expert. (Check out ILS’s previous articles here and here discussing Procaps’ failure to
-
Court Declines to Order Spoliation Sanctions Despite Intentional Deletion of ESI
In Selectica v. Novatus, Inc., Case No. 6:13-cv-1708-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2015), the Middle District of Florida considered whether to order spoliation sanctions after Defendant’s employee admitted to deleting relevant ESI. Plaintiff’s former employee, Mr. Graham Holt (“Holt”), had left his employment with Plaintiff company to work for Defendant company. While
-
Court Permits Plaintiff a 30(b)(6) Deposition to Address Missing Emails and Instant Messages
In Stage v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-077 (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 12, 2015), a sex discrimination case brought against Restoration Hardware and one of its supervisors, the Southern District of Ohio considered Plaintiff’s motion to compel Restoration Hardware to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s document requests, as well Plaintiff’s motion
-
Sanctions Imposed After National Title Company Fails To Institute A Litigation Hold
In Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Captiva Lake Investments, Case No. 4:10-CV-1890 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015), Defendant Captiva Lake Investments (“Captiva”) uncovered two sets of data that Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity) – one of the largest title and escrow services companies in the United States – had
-
Text Messages and Plaintiff’s eDiscovery
What Does Recent Case Law Say About Text Message Preservation? Text messages can present particular challenges in eDiscovery. To avoid the common pitfalls, the plaintiff’s bar needs to know both how to properly preserve its clients’ text messages and how to ensure defense counsel produces everything plaintiffs are entitled to
-
Is Human Error a Valid Excuse for Missing Emails and Audio Recordings?
In Novick v. AXA Network, No. 07-CV-7767(AKH)(KNF)(S.D.N.Y. October 22, 2014), at issue is Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant for missing audio recordings and emails. The timeline is helpful to understand this case: Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination that occurred in October 2006 Plaintiff sent an evidence preservation request in October
-
Defense Counsel Fined for Failing to Issue Timely Litigation Hold
Alter v. Rocky Point School Dist., No. 13-1100(JS)(AKT)(E.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 2014) is a workplace discrimination action. After discovery began, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel and a motion for sanctions against Defendants for failing to preserve electronic discovery and failing to issue a litigation hold of key players to the action.