eDiscovery analysis reveals companies struggle most with preservation | Messaging Architects

Companies are continuing to struggle with the preservation stage of the eDiscovery process, according to the results of a data management company’s analysis of 84 prominent cases.

The firm studied litigation that occurred between January 1 and October 31 of this year and found failure to follow email archiving best practices was a prevailing trend.

Thirty-nine percent of cases studied dealt with sanctions. Of those, 49 percent pertained to preservation and spoliation issues. Another 2 percent of cases addressed preservation and spoliation issues, but not in terms of sanctions.

All told, sanctions were levied in 23 of the 33 cases in which they were addressed, according to the report.

“Information management and discovery protocols and processes are far from clear for most organizations,” said Michele Lange, an eDiscovery expert with the company that conducted the analysis.

via eDiscovery analysis reveals companies struggle most with preservation | Messaging Architects.

Court Finds No Spoliation as to Documents Produced from Backup Tapes because “Documents Were Never in Fact Destroyed” : Electronic Discovery Law

Pitney Bowes Gov. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 2010 WL 3278402 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 19, 2010)

In this post-award bid protest, plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions for defendant’s destruction of relevant documents.  Although most of the documents were deleted and/or destroyed by their original custodians upon the order of the contracting officer, the documents were available for production from backup tapes.  The restored documents, however, all reflected the same author in their metadata, causing plaintiff to doubt their veracity and persist in its request for spoliation sanctions.

via Court Finds No Spoliation as to Documents Produced from Backup Tapes because “Documents Were Never in Fact Destroyed” : Electronic Discovery Law.

Jury Instruction Allowing Inference that Destroyed Evidence Was Unfavorable and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Ordered as Sanction for Failure to Preserve : Electronic Discovery Law

Medcorp, Inc. v. Pinpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (D. Colo. June 15, 2010)

Finding “willful” spoliation of 43 hard drives “in the sense that Plaintiff was aware of its responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so”, a special master ordered a jury instruction which allowed the jury to infer that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to plaintiff and for the parties to split the cost of defendants’ litigation of the spoliation issue.  Upon a motion to modify the order, the magistrate judge affirmed the imposition of the jury instruction, but found plaintiff should pay all of defendants’ reasonable expenses and ordered payment of $89,365.88.

via Jury Instruction Allowing Inference that Destroyed Evidence Was Unfavorable and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Ordered as Sanction for Failure to Preserve : Electronic Discovery Law.

Court Orders Monetary Fine for Gross Negligence and Intentional Spoliation of ESI, Including Emails, Text-Messages, and Skype Messages : Electronic Discovery Law

A little diagram of an IP address (IPv4)
Image via Wikipedia

Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Tech., LLC, 2010 WL 1702216 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2010)

Upon finding that defendants spoliated relevant information, including emails, Skype messages, and computer logs, the court declined to order an adverse inference, to preclude defendants from the presentation of arguments implicating the discarded documents, or to order defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs, but ordered monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,000, after balancing “2FA’s litigation conduct with its status as a small corporation.”

In this opinion, the court addressed plaintiff’s allegations that defendants, specifically defendant Gregory Salyards, committed fraud on the court by creating and sending an anonymous email “in an effort to expand discovery, cause Passlogix competitive harm, and garner a favorable settlement.”  Defending against the accusation, Salyards proffered the affirmative defense of IP spoofing, “stating that a Passlogix employee may have ‘spoofed’ his IP address in an effort to impersonate him on the internet.”  Passlogix also sought spoliation sanctions arguing that defendants failed to implement a legal hold and took part in intentional spoliation of data, including emails and text messages.

Although beyond the scope of this summary, the court’s lengthy discussion of the anonymous email(s) and Salyards’ defense of “IP spoofing” is fascinating and showcases how ever-advancing technology has created scenarios for consideration that, not long ago, seemed more the stuff of spy novels than of litigation in our federal courts.

via Court Orders Monetary Fine for Gross Negligence and Intentional Spoliation of ESI, Including Emails, Text-Messages, and Skype Messages : Electronic Discovery Law.

Avoiding Sanctions over Duty to Preserve Evidence | Duane Morris LLP – JDSupra

In late 2009 a federal District Court sitting in Orlando, Fla., sent shockwaves through the in-house general counsel world. The case, Swofford v. Eslinger,1 is the first reported case to sanction in-house counsel for spoliation of electronic evidence.

In Swofford, while in pursuit of two suspects, deputies from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO), encountered an armed Robert Swofford on his property, and shot him. Mr. Swofford’s attorney served the sheriff’s office with a letter requesting that all evidence relating to the shooting be preserved in its original condition. Thereafter, Mr. Swofford’s attorney sent a second letter to the office directing it to preserve all evidence of the shooting, including “firearms, clips, and ammunition, training records and electronic evidence.”2

Please see full article below for more information.

via Avoiding Sanctions over Duty to Preserve Evidence | Duane Morris LLP – JDSupra.

Judge Scheindlin analyzes the law of spoliation : Electronic Discovery Blog

Plaintiff producers were a group of investors who had brought an action to recover $550 million lost as a result of the liquidation of two British Virgin Island hedge funds. In October, 2007, the Citco Defendants claimed that large gaps in plaintiffs’ document production had been found. Depositions were held and declarations submitted between October, 2007 and June 2008. As a result of this discovery, defendant requestors moved for sanctions, alleging that plaintiffs had failed to properly preserve and produce documents, and had submitted false declarations regarding their efforts.

Judge Scheindlin then undertook an exhaustive review of the various aspects of the law underlying spoliation:

I begin with a discussion of how to define negligence, gross negligence, and willfulness in the discovery context and what conduct falls in each of these categories. I then review the law governing the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to produce relevant information during discovery. This is followed by factual summaries regarding the discovery efforts – or lack thereof – undertaken by each of the thirteen plaintiffs against whom sanctions are sought, and then by an application of the law to those facts.

Id. at *5-*6. The judge concluded that all plaintiffs were either negligent or grossly negligent in meeting their discovery obligations; thus, sanctions were required.

via Judge Scheindlin analyzes the law of spoliation : Electronic Discovery Blog.