Spoliation

ILS Team
December 25, 2019

Use Of Messaging App To Auto Delete Text Messages During Discovery Phase of Case Was In Bad Faith

In Herzig v. Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02101 (W.D. Ark. July 3, 2019), the Arkansas District Judge found that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith by using and “manually configuring [the messaging app] Signal to delete text communications” and by failing to disclose those deleted messages to Defendant. However, the Court declined to

ilsteam
October 2, 2019

Plaintiff Not Precluded From Introducing Evidence Regarding Missing ESI

In Saulsberry v. Savannah River Remediations, LLC., No. 1:16-cv-02792-JMC(D.S.C. Sep. 19, 2019), the United States District Court for South Carolina denied Defendant’s motion in limine to bar Plaintiff from making adverse comments regarding Defendant’s failure to produce certain relevant ESI on the grounds that doing so would amount to an absolute bar to Plaintiff’s ability

ilsteam
September 25, 2019

Protocol Which Deprived Defendants Opportunity to Review for Privilege Vacated

In Crosmun v. Trustees of Fayetteville Technical Community College, No. COA18-1054 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina vacated the lower court’s opinion and remanded for further proceedings after holding that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the production of ESI through a protocol that allowed Plaintiff’s

ilsteam
September 18, 2019

Sanctions Granted Due To Defendant “Willfully” Acting To Prevent Plaintiff From Accessing Photographic Evidence

In Wilmoth v. Deputy Austin Murphy, No. 5:16-CV-5244 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 7, 2019), an Arkansas District Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for spoliation on the grounds that Defendant’s conduct exhibited an “intent to deprive” Plaintiff of the use of photographs that supported Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant. This case involves claims of excessive use of

ilsteam
September 13, 2019

Failure To Preserve Police Dash Cam Video Results in Sanctions

In Woods v. Scissons, No. CV-17-08038-PCT-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2019), an Arizona Chief District judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of video footage of an arrest involving Plaintiff and Defendant, a police officer with the Prescott Police Department. In this case, the Court ruled that non-party

ilsteam
August 9, 2019

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request For Adverse Inference Due To Plaintiff’s Failure to Demonstrate Defendant’s Intent

In Drivetime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew, No. 2:17-cv-371(S.D. Ohio April 18, 2019), the Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference sanction against Defendant Pauley Motor on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Defendant Bruce Pauley intentionally failed to take reasonable steps to preserve

ilsteam
August 6, 2019

Magistrate Judge Recommends Default Judgment Against Defendants For Wide-Scale Discovery Misconduct

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., No. 15-CV-5826(CBA)(LB) (E.D.N.Y May 2, 2019), a New York Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions be granted on the grounds that Defendants’ course of conduct presented “a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court.” The underlying

ilsteam
July 30, 2019

Motion For Sanctions Denied On Grounds of Failure to Establish Prejudice, Despite Finding Defendant’s Clear Failure to Preserve Evidence

In Maifile v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., No. 18-CV-586-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla. May 21, 2019), an Oklahoma Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions on grounds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate she suffered prejudice from the loss of her previous work computer, despite finding the Defendant’s clear failure to preserve the computer. This case involves an employment

ilsteam
July 19, 2019

Judge Rules that Two-year Knowledge of Spoliation Prior to Filing of Motion Makes It “Untimely”

In Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., No 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019), the Oregon District Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant on the grounds that since Plaintiff knew about the spoliation for over two years, her motion was “untimely.” This case stems from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which