Close
Enter your
text here

Preservation

Court Grants Motion to Compel in Elizabeth Holmes Theranos Criminal Case: eDiscovery Case Law

In United States v. Holmes, et al, No. 5:18-cr-00258-EJD-1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019), California District Court Judge Edward J. Davila granted the defendants’ motion to compel federal prosecutors to produce material responsive to six requests from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), disagreeing with the prosecution’s contention that it could not be compelled to produce documents from under Rule 16 because it lacked access to them.

Case Background

In this criminal case regarding charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud against key officers of the now defunct company Theranos, on April 15, 2019, defendant Holmes (later joined by defendant Balwani) moved to compel federal prosecutors to produce material responsive to six requests from FDA and CMS.  In addition, the defendants raised concerns about the Agencies’ preservation efforts, the failure of FDA to run certain search terms and failure of the Agencies to complete production by either an original deadline of October 2 or an extended deadline of October 25.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting that Rule 16 “grants criminal defendants a broad right to discovery”, Judge Davila stated: “The Prosecution does not oppose Defendants obtaining the sought-after documents, but it argues that it cannot be compelled to produce the documents under Rule 16 because it lacks access…The court disagrees. Even though the Agencies are not part of DOJ, the Prosecution’s involvement with the Agencies’ discovery efforts reveals a relationship that includes significant access, communication and assistance, such as CMS’s use of DOJ’s Litigation Technology Service Center. This cooperative relationship moves the Prosecution closer to privity of knowledge and control of the information sought. The Prosecution’s access to the requested documents is further shown through its dealings with the Agencies prior to the filing of this motion.”  As a result, Judge Davila “order[ed] the Prosecution to produce the documents discussed below as part of their Rule 16 obligation, and to assist the Agencies however possible to ensure the timely production of documents.”

Turning to the alleged deficiencies in the Agencies’ productions, Judge Davila noted, among other concerns, that “Defendants contend that over 1000 emails from a single witness have been produced as fragmentary documents—i.e, that the produced emails omit portions of the original email, such as the “to,” or “from,” or the body fields… Defendants also contend that CMS and FDA have failed to produce some hardcopy documents.”  As a result, Judge Davila “order[ed] that the Agencies shall continue their investigations of these issues and shall disclose the procedures and results of their investigations to the parties no later than November 26, 2019.”

Judge Davila also ordered FDA to “run searches of all of its custodians’ documents using the following terms: ‘LDT’, ‘Laboratory Developed Test’, ‘Theranos’, ‘fingerstick’ or ‘finger stick’, and ‘nanotainer’” and “produce any responsive documents returned by these searches” to address search term concerns expressed by the defendants.  With regard to the missed production deadlines, Judge Davila “order[ed] the Agencies and the Prosecution to complete the production of documents by December 31, 2019.”

Finally, Judge Davila “order[ed] the Agencies, the Prosecution, and Defendants to meet and confer on the above issues, and other discovery related matters” to include “(a) whether the Agencies have or will produce employee text messages, (b) any deficiencies in FDA’s production that are attributable to FDA’s instruction to employees to manually search for responsive documents instead of forensically searching for, collecting, and reviewing documents, (c) the terms the Agencies use to search for and collect potentially responsive documents, and (d) FDA’s redactions to documents and withholding of duplicate documents.”  Judge Davila also set a further status conference for January 13, 2020.

So, what do you think?  Was the judge correct to order the prosecution to produce documents from other agencies?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Motion to Bar Plaintiff From Making Adverse Comments Regarding Defendant’s Failure to Produce Key File: eDiscovery Case Law

In Saulsberry v. Savannah River Remediation, LLC, No.: 1:16-cv-02792-JMC (D.S.C. Sep. 19, 2019), South Carolina District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs denied without prejudice the defendant’s Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff from Making Adverse Comments Regarding Defendant’s Failure to Produce Certain Records, finding that defendant “has not demonstrated that the contents of the missing Lash Investigative File would necessarily replicate, but not add to, the information provided in the record.”

Case Background

In this Title VII and § 1981 disparate treatment action filed by the plaintiff, she had previously made an internal EEO Complaint in 2013 which allegedly arose from her participation in the 2012 investigation of Robert Lash after which she contended that she was “targeted by her managers and treated differently”.  During discovery, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the contents of the Lash Investigation, but the defendant admitted that it never produced the Lash Investigative File and also admitted that, although there was a physical Lash Investigative File, it submitted written discovery responses stating that no notes or other documentary evidence existed regarding the [Lash] investigation.

However, two deposed witnesses suggested that “documentary evidence which should be in hard copy of the [Lash] Investigative File” and the plaintiff indicated that she had provided some documents from the file to the EEO Director, as part of her internal EEO claim in September of 2013.  Nonetheless, the defendant was unable to locate the file.  The plaintiff contended that the Lash Investigative File was relevant to several of her remaining claims, while the defendant claimed that the file was no longer relevant to any remaining claim and filed a motion to have the court to bar the plaintiff’s ability to elicit testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the file, contending the issue of “’why’ [Saulsberry] was included in the WFR is no longer relevant” to the claims before the court.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Childs stated: “While the court agrees that the disappearance of the Lash Investigative File is relevant to the WFR claims which are no longer before the court, the court does not necessarily agree that the Lash Investigative File is not also relevant to the claims presently before the court.”  The plaintiff had argued that her remaining race and retaliation claims relate to her participation in the Lash investigation and also contended that evidence of her ‘protected activity’ (that prohibited her from being rehired for a position) was in the Lash File.  As a result, Judge Childs stated: “This court, therefore, shall not, at this time, prohibit Saulsberry from introducing evidence, or eliciting testimony regarding the Lash File and the circumstances surrounding its disappearance.”

With regard to the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff should be “precluded from seeking an adverse inference charge regarding the lost file”, Judge Childs stated: “The court has a similar view on this issue… SRR has not demonstrated that the contents of the missing Lash Investigative File would necessarily replicate, but not add to, the information provided in the record. Further, ‘Even if a court determines not to exclude secondary evidence, it may still permit the jury to draw unfavorable inferences against the party responsible for the loss or destruction of the original evidence.’ Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156.”  As a result, in denying the defendant’s motion, Judge Childs stated “the court declines to substantively exclude, at this time, all references to the disappearance of the Lash Investigative File or indefinitely preclude Saulsbury from making a showing that an adverse inference instruction based on its disappearance is warranted. Moreover, SRR has not addressed or demonstrated what, if any, prejudice would result if its motion is denied.”

So, what do you think?  Should parties be able to bar opposing parties for commenting about lost records in court proceedings?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Wal-Mart is Allowed to Clawback Inadvertent Disclosures, But Still Sanctioned Over What They Revealed: eDiscovery Case Law

In Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2019), in a case that was discussed earlier this week at Relativity Fest, Texas District Judge Xavier Rodriguez ruled that the defendant was entitled to “claw back” the documents it inadvertently produced in the case, but still considered those documents in analyzing the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and granted that motion to the extent that he ruled that the defendant could not assert any comparative negligence defense in this case, including arguing that the danger (of a pallet being left unattended in the store) was open and obvious.

Case Background

In this case involving a slip and fall, the plaintiff alleged that she sustained severe injuries to her knees and ankles when she tripped over a pallet in one of the defendant’s stores.  After the Magistrate Judge ordered the defendant to supplement its disclosures and discovery responses and provide the plaintiff with a privilege log as to any withheld documents as part of dismissing an earlier plaintiff motion for sanctions without prejudice, a paralegal in counsel for the defendant’s office inadvertently produced documents that the defendant claimed were privileged under the attorney-client privilege or work product. While arguing that some of the inadvertently produced documents were not privileged, the plaintiff also argued that the inadvertently produced documents demonstrated that defendant’s counsel acted in bad faith and engaged in discovery abuse.

Judge’s Ruling

While noting that “This Court encourages parties to enter into a Rule 502(d) Order” (which we have covered here previously), Judge Rodriguez also remarked that failing to request such an order “was the first of many mistakes by Defendant’s counsel in this case”, so he performed an analysis under Rule 502(b) to determine whether the defendant had waived privilege for the inadvertently disclosed documents.

Because the plaintiff ultimately conceded the documents were privileged after an in camera review by the Court, the Court decided not to “dwell on this issue”.  But, Judge Rodriguez did remark that “the privilege log was woefully deficient”, noting that he was “unable to ascertain the identities of various recipients of the emails in question.”  Nonetheless, finding that the disclosure was inadvertent, that the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that the defendant promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, Judge Rodriguez ruled that “Defendant is entitled to ‘claw back’ the documents it inadvertently produced” under Rule 502(b).

However, Judge Rodriguez also stated: “But that is not the end of this analysis. Although Plaintiff may not further use these documents in this case, preventing their use in analyzing the pending motion for sanctions would result in a perverse result, upending the rules of civil procedure and encouraging discovery abuse.”  In reviewing the inadvertently produced emails, Plaintiff’s counsel became aware of the following:

  • As early as July 23, 2018, Defendant’s counsel knew of the identity of the store manager who interviewed Plaintiff shortly after her accident;
  • As early as July 23, 2018, Defendant’s counsel knew of the identity of the employee who left the pallet unattended;
  • By August 6, 2018, counsel for Defendant knew of the addresses and phone numbers for these two persons; and
  • By February 9, 2019, counsel for Defendant knew the identity of the asset protection manager that was supposed to obtain the surveillance footage.

However, the defendant failed to list these individuals in their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and failed to timely list them in answers to interrogatories.  Judge Rodriguez stated: “It is apparent from a reading of the materials submitted either Defendant’s counsel was grossly negligent in fulfilling their discovery obligations or they realized they had an uncooperative manager who was refusing to assist in their investigation, and they did not want to disclose the identities of potentially ‘bad’ witnesses.”

In reviewing the inadvertently produced emails, Plaintiff’s counsel also became aware of the following:

  • On November 21, 2016, the manager completed a Document Preservation Directive requesting that surveillance video be collected, along with photos taken at the scene and the statement from the customer;
  • By January 16, 2018, Defendant was aware that the store lost the video and that the store manager was refusing to provide any statement;
  • Wal-Mart’s outside claim investigation agency reported that exposure on this claim was probable and suggested that the claim be “compromise[d] to avoid spoliation potential”; and
  • On June 29, 2018, one of Defendant’s outside counsel wrote an email to “Travis Rodmon-Legal” indicating that the claim file notes video from the scene was saved; “however, the Walmart discovery sources have not been able to provide a video to date.”

Judge Rodriguez stated: “Counsel for Defendant never disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel that at one time video may have existed that was now lost. Rather, counsel merely kept repeating that video does not exist.”  It was also discovered that the defendant hired an investigator to conduct an undisclosed full social media/background check on the plaintiff on June 20, 2018.

While noting that the defendant had a duty to preserve the video, that it failed to take reasonable steps to preserve that video and that the video cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, Judge Rodriguez stated that “Rule 37(e)(2) is not applicable because Plaintiff has failed to establish that Wal-Mart acted with the intent to deprive her of the video.”  But he did rule that “Plaintiff has established prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1)” and, noting that “Defendant has raised a contributory negligence defense in this case” (arguing that the danger of the pallet was open and obvious), ruled that “Defendant may not assert any comparative negligence defense in this case, including arguing that the danger was open and obvious.”

So, what do you think?  Should inadvertently disclosed privileged documents be considered in ruling on sanctions motions?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Issuing the Hold is Just the Beginning: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays

Here’s our latest blog post in our Throwback Thursdays series where we are revisiting some of the eDiscovery best practice posts we have covered over the years and discuss whether any of those recommended best practices have changed since we originally covered them.

This post was originally published on March 23, 2012, and concludes our two-part series on this topic.  There is more to litigation holds than just issuing an automated hold, suspending auto-delete programs (including those for text and other messaging apps) and tracking the responses.

Last week, we discussed identifying custodians, preparing a written litigation hold, issuing the hold and tracking responses.  Today, we’ll discuss interviewing hold notice recipients, follow up on notices, releasing holds when the obligation to preserve is removed and tracking all holds within an organization.  Here are the rest of the best practices for implementing a litigation hold.

Interviewing Hold Notice Recipients: Depending on the case, follow-up interviews (with at least the key custodians) are generally accepted as a best practice and may be necessary to ensure defensibility of the notice.  The point of these interviews is to repeat the duty to preserve, provide a detailed explanation of the requirements of the hold, answer the recipient’s questions (if any), and confirm that the recipient understands and agrees to adhere to the notice. You should keep written records of each of these interviews and document the reasoning for determining which individuals to interview.

Follow-Up on Hold Notices: For a litigation hold plan to be successful and defensible, it needs to include periodic follow-up reminders to recipients of the notices to inform them that the data in question remains under hold until the case concludes. Follow-up reminders could simply be a retransmission of the original notice or they could be a summary of all of the notices the individual has received, if there are multiple cases with holds for that individual. There is no specific requirement on how often the reminders should be sent, but it’s best to send them at least quarterly.  For some cases, it may be necessary to send them monthly.

Release the Hold: Not to be confused with “release the hounds”, it is just as important to inform people when the duty to preserve the data expires (typically, when the case is completed) as it is to notify them when the duty to preserve begins.  Releasing the hold is key to ensure that information doesn’t continue to be preserved outside of the organization’s document retention policies – if it is, it may then become subject to litigation holds in other litigations unnecessarily.  Releasing the hold also helps keep custodians from being overwhelmed with multiple retention notices, which could cause them to take the notices less seriously.  However, the release notification should be clear with regard to the fact that data subject to hold in another matter should continue to be preserved to meet discovery obligations in that matter.

Hold Tracking System: It’s important to have a reliable “system” for tracking litigation holds across all matters within the organization. Depending on your needs, that could be part of the litigation hold tracking solution discussed in last week’s post, or it could even be a simple database or spreadsheet to track the information.  You should keep historical tracking data even for completed matters as that information can be useful in guiding hold issuance on new matters (by helping to identify the correct custodians for new matters that are factually similar or related to current closed or open matters).  At a minimum, a tracking system should:

  • Track responses from individual custodians and identify those who have not yet responded,
  • Track periodic reminder notices and release notices,
  • Provide ability to report a list of people with a duty to preserve for a specific matter as well as all matters for which a person is under retention.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a solid “hold” on your hold process?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Hold It Right There!: eDiscovery Throwback Thursdays

Here’s our latest blog post in our Throwback Thursdays series where we are revisiting some of the eDiscovery best practice posts we have covered over the years and discuss whether any of those recommended best practices have changed since we originally covered them.

This post was originally published on March 22, 2012, when eDiscovery Daily was just over a year and a half old.  Even though the Federal Rules changes of 2015 have made sanctions more difficult to obtain with the “intent to deprive” standard in Rule 37(e) for significant sanctions for spoliation of ESI, failure to issue a litigation hold has been seen in the eyes of some courts as an intentional act, leading to adverse inference instruction sanctions or even dismissal or default judgment of the case.  So, implementing a solid litigation hold is as important than ever.  Also important is suspending any auto delete programs that are running for key custodians.  Seven and a half years ago, those were primarily associated with email auto delete programs, but it now is just as important for text message and other message programs as well, as illustrated by these three recent cases.  Enjoy!

When we review key case decisions every year related to eDiscovery, the most case law decisions are almost always those related to sanctions and spoliation issues.  Most of the spoliation sanctions were due to untimely or inadequate preservation of the data for litigation.  As noted in the historic Zubulake decision, Judge Shira Sheindlin ruled that parties in litigation have an obligation to preserve potentially relevant data as soon as there is a reasonable expectation that data may be relevant to future litigation.  However, even if the party reacts in a timely manner to take steps to preserve data through a litigation hold, but executes those steps poorly, data can be lost and sanctions can occur.  Here are some best practices for implementing a litigation hold.

The most effective litigation hold plans are created before actual litigation arises and applied consistently across all matters. While cases and jurisdictions vary and there are not many hard and fast rules on implementing litigation holds, there are generally accepted best practices for implementing holds.  Implementation of a litigation hold generally includes each of the steps identified below:

Identify Custodians and Suspend Auto-Delete Programs: As we have learned in many cases over the years, it’s important to completely identify all potential custodians and suspend any automatic deletion programs that might result in deletion of data subject to litigation.  As noted above, those auto-delete programs extend to more than just email these days, as we have seen several cases (especially lately) involving failure to suspend auto-delete programs for text and other messaging apps.

Custodians can be individuals or non-individual sources such as IT and records management departments.  To determine a complete list of custodians, it’s generally best to conduct interviews of people identified as key players for the case, asking them to identify other individuals who are likely to have potentially relevant data in their possession.

Prepare Written Hold Notice: Hold notices should be in writing, and should typically be written in a standard format.  They should identify all types of data to be preserved and for what relevant period.  Sometimes, hold notices are customized depending on the types of custodians receiving them (e.g., IT department may receive a specific notice to suspend tape destruction or disable auto-deletion of emails).

Distribute Hold Notice: It is important to distribute the notice using a communication mechanism that is reliable and verifiable. Typically, this is via email and litigation hold distribution and tracking mechanisms have become much more common in recent years. Distribution should occur only to the selected and specific individuals likely to have potentially relevant information, usually not company-wide, as not everyone will understand the parameters of the hold.  Believe it or not, notices with overly broad distributions have, in some cases, been deemed inadequate by courts.

Track Responses: It is advisable to require recipients of the litigation hold notice to confirm their receipt and understanding of the notice via a method that can be tracked (again, a litigation hold program can help automate this process as it can keep track of those who have acknowledged receipt of the hold notice as well as who hasn’t).  These litigation hold distribution and tracking programs have become preferable to any manual programs for tracking read receipt notifications through email.

Next week, we’ll discuss follow up on notices, releasing holds when the obligation to preserve is removed and tracking all holds within an organization.  Hasta la vista, baby!

So, what do you think?  Do you have a solid “hold” on your hold process?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Another Case Where Intent to Deprive is Put in the Hands of the Jury: eDiscovery Case Law

In Woods v. Scissons, No. CV-17-08038-PCT-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2019), Arizona Chief District Judge G. Murray Snow granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of video footage of an arrest incident involving the plaintiff and the defendant (a police officer with the Prescott Police Department), ruling that non-party City of Prescott violated a duty to preserve evidence of the alleged incident, but that the question of intent should be submitted to the jury to determine appropriate sanctions.

Case Background

In this claim of excessive force against the defendant arising out of the plaintiff’s arrest in June 2016, the plaintiff alleged that after the defendant placed him in handcuffs, he struck the plaintiff several times while he lay face-down on the pavement, resulting in a fracture to his lower back which left him in severe pain and will likely require future surgery to repair.  Several officers arrived on the scene during the course of the arrest.  After the Prescott Police Department Review Board determined that no “criminal, civil or Department Policy violations” had occurred during the arrest, the plaintiff filed this action in February 2017.  Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion for spoliation sanctions, arguing that non-party City of Prescott violated a duty to preserve evidence of the alleged incident—video footage automatically captured by the cameras in the various officers’ vehicles—by allowing the footage to be automatically deleted from the police department’s systems.

Judge’s Ruling

Noting examples of at least two officers (in addition to the defendant’s) whose dash cams would likely have been recording, Judge Snow stated: “the available evidence, taken as a whole, establishes that dash cam footage was recorded by at least two vehicles that could have been relevant to Woods’ claim.”  Judge Snow also “decline[d] to assume that any recordings from the vehicles in question would have been irrelevant to Woods’ claim”, stating “the footage’s value cannot simply be replaced by having eyewitness testimony regarding Woods’ arrest—much of the value provided by video footage is that it allows a jury to make its own determination.”

Judge Snow also ruled that the City of Prescott (which was paying for legal representation for the defendant) “had a duty to preserve any video recordings from the responding officers’ dash cams once it knew that litigation was reasonably likely” (which was by April 2017, at the latest) and “the parties do not dispute that any footage has been erased.”  And, Judge Snow ruled that “[t]he spoliation can be imputed to Scissons”, observing that the City would pay any judgment against the defendant in the case.

As a result, Judge Snow granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ordering the following: “Because there is evidence that video recordings of the alleged event existed but were not preserved, the jury will hear evidence concerning the potential existence of video footage and will be instructed that it may consider that evidence along with all other evidence in reaching its decision. It will also be instructed that if it determines that the Police Department destroyed evidence and did so with the intent to deprive Woods of the use of the video footage, it may infer that the footage would have been favorable to Woods. However, the Court declines to give the instruction as requested by Woods because the question of intent will be submitted to the jury.”

So, what do you think?  Should juries decide intent to deprive in spoliation disputes?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Grants Spoliation Sanctions for Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Photos of Prisoner Plaintiff: eDiscovery Case Law

In Wilmoth v. Deputy Austin Murphy, No. 5:16-CV-5244 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 7, 2019), Arkansas District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Regarding Spoliation, finding that the “defendant’s conduct in this case was designed to deprive” the plaintiff the use of photographs in litigation that were purported to have shown injuries suffered by the plaintiff associated with his excessive force claim against the deputy defendant.

Case Background

In this case involving the plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Deputy Murphy for an incident on August 12, 2016 in the plaintiff’s cell, Judge Brooks observed that “the facts surrounding that confrontation are disputed, but it is undisputed that Wilmoth sustained at least some bruising following the event.”  Pursuant to standard operating procedures, Deputy Zachary Hale took photographs of the plaintiff and his injuries using his personal cell phone (of which Sergeant Lira made specific mention in his resulting report), which were to be used in the resulting investigation of the incident.  But the photographs were either 1) never uploaded to the jail’s internal incident reporting system or 2) were uploaded and were subsequently misplaced or deleted – they were also never produced to the plaintiff during discovery.  Claiming that this evidence was intentionally destroyed or made unavailable to him by the defendant, the plaintiff requested an adverse inference instruction based on spoliation of evidence.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Brooks began discussion of the issue by stating: “Before a Court can impose sanctions under Rule 37, it must first determine that the party had a duty to preserve electronically stored information. In this case, that proof is abundant.”  Noting that counsel for the defendants had issued a litigation hold letter to the officers of the Benton County Jail and that the Court’s initial scheduling order directed that, within 45 days, defendants were to provide the plaintiff with “a copy of all incident reports documenting incidents referenced in the Plaintiff’s complaint, including any color photographs”, Judge Brooks stated: “As such, defendant was clearly on notice—both through his own attorney and court orders, that he was under a duty to preserve documents relevant to the incidents recounted in Wilmoth’s complaint.”

Judge Brooks went on to note that “the evidence as a collective whole indicates that there were many times when defense counsel buried her head in the sand in this case and never fully committed to producing this evidence or discovering where it was” and “that includes conduct which might readily be viewed as intentional deception before this court.”

As a result, Judge Brooks ordered the following sanctions: “First, in light of Sergeant Lira’s role in conducting the investigation into Wilmoth’s sexual assault allegations, the Court finds it literally incredible to hear Lira explain that he does not remember what he did with the pictures that he acknowledged viewing in his report or why these photographs would not have been uploaded as a crucial part of his investigatory file in accordance with county policy. The Court finds that his actions in this case have severely undermined his credibility. Given his direct involvement in viewing and in failing to ensure preservation of these photographs, the Court finds that his actions demonstrate bad faith and that it would be appropriate to prevent the defendant from calling him as a witness in his case. The same sanction will also apply to Deputy Hale. Hale admitted during his deposition that although standard policy would have already required him to preserve and upload these photographs to the system, he certainly should have done so here given the nature of Wilmoth’s accusations against Deputy Murphy. Yet, he failed to take any reasonable steps to ensure preservation of the materials that he knew were crucial to the resulting investigation… Second, under Rule 37(e)(2)(B) and in light of the Court’s earlier finding that defendant and his counsel have willfully acted to prevent Wilmoth from accessing this documentary evidence that he claims would support his case, the Court will instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, presume that the photographs in question would have supported Wilmoth’s claimed injuries arising from his in-cell confrontation with Deputy Murphy and that the lack of such photographic evidence should not be held against Wilmoth in this case.”

So, what do you think?  Were the sanctions granted appropriate for the level of spoliation?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Denies Dueling Sanctions Motions from Both Plaintiffs and Defendants: eDiscovery Case Law

In Cox v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, No. 18-CV-117-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Aug. 6, 2019), Oklahoma District Judge Jodi F. Jayne denied both the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, finding no intent to deprive by either side to justify a sanction of either an adverse inference jury instruction or directed verdict (for the plaintiffs)/dismissal (for the defendants).

Case Background

In this case involving an accident between two tractor/trailers in which Plaintiff Adam Cox suffered severe injuries, both parties failed to preserve electronic data:

  • Defendant Swift Transportation Company (“Swift”) failed to preserve: (1) electronic control module (“ECM”) data of the Swift tractor/trailer driven by Defendant Sai Wai (“Wai”), which would have provided information regarding the speed of Wai’s vehicle at the time of the accident and any “Critical Event Report” prompted by hard braking or a sudden drastic change in speed; (2) messages delivered from Wai to Swift via the Qualcomm mobile communication system; and (3) Wai’s electronic driver “E-logs” for the 1.5 hours immediately prior to the accident, which were also stored electronically on the Qualcomm system.
  • Plaintiffs Adam and Kimberly Cox failed to preserve: (1) ECM data from Cox’s vehicle, which Defendants argue would have (a) provided information regarding the speed of Cox’s vehicle at the time of the accident, and (b) potentially bolstered its expert’s opinion that Cox failed to brake; and (2) Cox’s paper driver logs, which were on the dashboard at the time of the accident (“Logs”).

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Defendant Swift’s Spoliation of Evidence, requesting two alternative sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e): (1) a directed verdict on the issue of liability; or (2) an adverse inference jury instruction.  The defendants’ filed a Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Spoliation of Evidence, requesting either the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case or an adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliated evidence.

Judge’s Ruling

In considering the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions for failure to preserve the ECM Data/Qualcomm Messages, Judge Jayne stated: “After consideration of the record and the parties’ oral argument, the Court finds that Swift did not “act[] with the intent to deprive [Plaintiffs] of the information’s use in the litigation” and therefore declines to impose either of the severe sanctions requested by Plaintiffs…Swift’s stated reason for failing to download the ECM data or immediately place a litigation hold on evidence is adequately supported by [investigating Officer Jason] McCarthy’s investigation, conclusions, and report, and the Court finds no inference or indication that Swift engaged in bad faith or intentional conduct aimed at depriving Plaintiffs of this evidence.”

Citing defendant Swift’s explanation for failure to preserve 1.5 hours of E-Logs as caused by a failure to account for a Time Zone difference between Mountain and Central Time, Judge Jayne stated: “The Court finds this explanation plausible and consistent with the actual missing data. This explanation, at most, shows a negligent failure to retain by Swift. As explained above, negligent failures to retain evidence cannot support Plaintiffs’ requested sanctions in this case, and Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions based on failure to preserve the missing E-logs is also denied.”

With regard to the defendants’ motion for sanctions, Judge Jayne stated “the Court easily concludes that Plaintiffs did not intentionally deprive Defendants of evidence or engage in any bad-faith conduct by failing to preserve the ECM data or the Logs. The engine, including the ECM device, was hauled away as debris from the scene of the accident by Environmental Remediation Services, Inc., (“ERS”), held for thirty days, and then sent to the scrap yard. Cox was in the hospital for five weeks following the accident. It strains reason to find that Plaintiffs acted with intent to deprive Defendants of this evidence when, at most, Plaintiffs failed to prevent another entity, ERS, from scrapping the engine pursuant to ERS’s own standard retention policy.”  She also characterized the plaintiffs’ explanation that the Logs on the dashboard were destroyed in the accident as “plausible” and stated: “Accordingly, Defendants’ requested sanctions of dismissal or an adverse inference instruction are denied.”

So, what do you think?  Should either party have attempted to obtain less severe sanctions instead?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Mobile Phone Spoliation Ends Not One, But Two Cases for Kevin Spacey: eDiscovery Case News

If you keep track of Hollywood news, you probably already know this story.  But, as David Horrigan discussed in an article last week, you may not know all the details or what it might mean for future cases.

In Legaltech® News (Commonwealth v. Fowler: What the Kevin Spacey Cases Mean for E-Discovery and the Law), David discusses the case Commonwealth v. Fowler, a criminal prosecution, and a related civil action, Little v. Fowler, stem from sexual assault allegations against the actor Kevin Spacey (whose legal name is Kevin Spacey Fowler).

In allegations that made headlines around the world two years later, an 18-year-old employee of a Nantucket restaurant claimed that, in the summer of 2016, Spacey plied him with alcohol and groped him at the restaurant. Of course, Spacey’s lawyers had a different take, arguing the encounter was a “mutual and consensual flirtation” and that the employee had told Spacey he was 23.  And, also of course, Spacey’s lawyers demanded discovery of the employee’s mobile phone, seeking text, video and Snapchat data from the date of the incident to the date of the discovery request.

Text messages between the employee and his girlfriend – purported to have been sent at the time of the alleged incident – had already been entered into the court record via screenshots. They included descriptions of the alleged incident by the employee and text responses from his girlfriend, including some with multiple emojis.  However, Spacey’s defense counsel argued that some of the text messages had been edited and the employee’s mother, a former Boston television news reporter, admitted that she had deleted some data (which she claimed was unrelated to the alleged incident) from the phone before turning it over to law enforcement.

But, that wasn’t the worst issue related to the phone.  The phone itself disappeared.  Law enforcement notes indicated the mobile phone had been returned to the employee’s family, but the family’s attorney told the court, “My clients do not recall ever receiving the phone.”  And, although the employee’s family said the phone had been backed up, Spacey’s counsel argued that wasn’t good enough and that they were entitled to the phone itself.  When Spacey’s counsel asked the employee whether he knew altering evidence was a crime, the employee invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, which resulted in the charges being dropped in the criminal case (after the civil case had already been dropped a few days before).  No phone = two cases closed.

In his article, David notes several interesting considerations from the cases, ranging from discovery of mobile devices to the use of emojis to the significance of social media (with a Snapchat video being important in the case as well).  Probably his most notable observation was whether the loss of the phone would have thrown out the evidence in the civil case with amended FRCP Rule 37(e) providing that sanctions were available when evidence “cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.”  Those phone backups might have led to a different result in the civil case.

I already noted that in our webcast last week (Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2019), Tom O’Connor and I discussed several cases (including this one, this one and this one) where spoliation and sanctions associated with smartphone ESI were the key issue being addressed.  Chalk up another one.

BTW, speaking of David: As I noted before, I am speaking at ILTACON in a couple of weeks as part of ILTACON’s brand new Litigation Support Day, which features a DAY of SPARK (Short, Provocative, Action-oriented, Realistic, and Knowledgeable) talks by leaders in the industry.  I will be participating in Session One – Litigation Support State of the Union from 9:00-10:30am that day (my talk is slated for approximately 9:35). I will be speaking about legal trends in the industry, with David moderating, so that means recent case law trends that should be interesting.  Do you think mobile device discovery will be one of those trends?  If you’re planning to be at ILTACON, come find out!

So, what do you think?  Would the phone backups have enabled the civil case to continue?  As always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Netflix

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Sanctions Plaintiff for Spoliation of Facebook Account: eDiscovery Case Law

Shark Week on the Discovery Channel concludes this weekend, which means Case Week on the eDiscovery Channel (a.k.a., eDiscovery Daily) concludes as well (don’t be sad, it will be back next year!).  During our webcast on Wednesday on Key eDiscovery Case Law Review for the First Half of 2019 (which, if you missed it, can be viewed here), Tom O’Connor and I discussed several cases that couldn’t quite get to the stage of issuing an adverse inference sanction for spoliation of ESI.  This case shows that there are still cases out there where these sanctions happen – when the intent to deprive is clear enough.

In Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc. et al., No. 16-2195 (ADC) (D.P.R. July 16, 2019), Puerto Rico District Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss for fraud on the Court, denying the defendant’s request for dismissal, but imposing a sanction of adverse inference regarding the content of the plaintiff’s Facebook page and her deletion of the related account.  Judge Delgado-Colon also ordered the defendant to “submit a proposed adverse-inference jury instruction to that effect before trial.”

Case Background

In this case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and unjust dismissal, when the defendant issued a set of interrogatories and request for production of documents asking the plaintiff to disclose and produce information and documents regarding her social media accounts, among other requests. The plaintiff responded, in essence, that she once had a social media account, but that it was closed and that she did not recall the name under which she had the account.

The defendant filed a motion to compel, contending that “the discovery was relevant in order to address plaintiff’s allegations of disability and her substantial allegations of severe mental, psychological, moral and emotional pain anguish and distress, loss of happiness and loss of capacity to enjoy life.”  The plaintiff claimed that prior to the discovery request, she had lost her cell phone, after which “she tried to access [her] Facebook account using [her] home computer” but got blocked out for unsuccessful attempts to log into the account and when she got a new phone, she tried again to access her Facebook account but was unable to do so and she did not “ha[ve] access to [the] Facebook account ever again.”  In a meeting between parties, the plaintiff was unsuccessful in accessing her Facebook account.

However, on September 19, 2018, the defendant was able to identify plaintiff’s public Facebook profile under the name `Córdova Eigna’—essentially, plaintiff’s second last-name and her first name spelled backwards.  That account was opened in 2009, the plaintiff updated her cover photo on August 23, 2018, and included a comment about `living happily ever after’ and posted a comment regarding the same as recently as September 6, 2018.  That same afternoon, however, the account became unavailable.  As a result, the defendant filed a motion, asserting that the plaintiff was duplicitous about the Facebook discovery in question and requested case dismissal.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Delgado-Colon found that “Mercado failed to comply with her obligation under Fed. R. Civ. 26(e) to supplement discovery responses to Walmart’s requests regarding her Facebook account. Specifically, taking as true Mercado’s contention that she was blocked out of said account for a period of time after having lost her cell phone, she was obligated to voluntarily inform Walmart when she later regained access and resumed her activities on Facebook. In that respect, the Court rejects Mercado’s explanation that she was unaware of having to do so because discovery had concluded, and Walmart’s summary judgment motion was pending adjudication. Those are not valid reasons for Mercado’s non-compliance with her disclosure obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), especially regarding an ongoing, contentious discovery issue and given that Mercado has been represented by counsel at all times in this case.”

As a result, Judge Delgado-Colon granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion, stating: “Walmart’s request for dismissal is denied. However, the Court hereby imposes as sanction an adverse inference regarding the content of Mercado’s Facebook page and her deletion of the related account. Accordingly, Walmart shall submit a proposed adverse-inference jury instruction to that effect before trial.”

So, what do you think?  Did the spoliation warrant the adverse inference instruction?  Please let us know if any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant.

Sponsor: This blog is sponsored by CloudNine, which is a data and legal discovery technology company with proven expertise in simplifying and automating the discovery of data for audits, investigations, and litigation. Used by legal and business customers worldwide including more than 50 of the top 250 Am Law firms and many of the world’s leading corporations, CloudNine’s eDiscovery automation software and services help customers gain insight and intelligence on electronic data.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.