Close
Enter your
text here

Electronic Discovery

Spoliation Sanctions Can Apply to Audio Files Too – eDiscovery Case Law

In Hart v. Dillon Cos., 2013 U.S. Dist. (D. Colo. 2013), Colorado Magistrate Judge David L. West granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence for failing to preserve a tape recorded interview with the plaintiff and set a hearing and oral argument as to what sanctions should be imposed for October.

As noted in the opinion, here are the facts:

  • On August 23, 2011, the plaintiff was terminated by the defendant for allegedly giving herself the incorrect pay rate while working in the bookkeeping department. As part of the defendant’s investigation, a loss prevention specialist for the defendant secretly tape recorded an interview with the plaintiff on August 6 which in part led to the termination of the plaintiff.
  • On November 1, 2011, the plaintiff filed an E.E.O.C. charge of discrimination.
  • On November 7, 2011, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s request for arbitration knowing the plaintiff would probably litigate the matter.
  • Sometime between January and March of 2012, the loss prevention specialist inadvertently taped over or erased his interview with the plaintiff.
  • On January 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed her Complaint.
  • On March 1, 2012, the defendant issued a litigation hold on all related documentation. Before the contents of the tape were destroyed, Pollard prepared a “case narrative” in writing which the defendant asserts is substantially accurate and the plaintiff claims does not include exculpatory information and the tenor of the interview.

As noted in the opinion, there is a three part test to determine spoliation of evidence:

1. Is the evidence relevant to an issue at trial?

2. Did the party have a duty to preserve the evidence because it knew or should have known, that litigation was imminent?

3. Was the other party prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence?

Judge West found that the interview was relevant as the defendant relied on the interview as part of the decision to terminate the plaintiff.  He also found that the defendant had a duty to preserve the data as far back as November 7, 2011, when the plaintiff’s request for arbitration was denied.  And, he found that the plaintiff was prejudiced by destruction of the audio, noting as many as 21 discrepancies between the defendant’s case narrative and the plaintiff’s stated recollection in her deposition and affidavit.  As he noted:

“Defendant was clearly four (4) months late in issuing a “litigation hold” concerning the tape in Pollard’s possession, and the Court finds Defendant is highly culpable for the failure to preserve the taped interview.

A failure to preserve evidence may be negligent, grossly negligent, or willful. After the duty to preserve attaches, the failure to collect taped recording from a key player is grossly negligent or willful behavior.”

Thus, Judge West granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and ordered the hearing to determine the sanctions to be applied to the defendant.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the right decision?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Wish There Were Better Standards for Production of Native Files? Enough is ENF! – eDiscovery Trends

At the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) annual meeting back in May, I provided updates for several of the EDRM projects, two of which (Metrics and Jobs) have already made significant announcements since the meeting.  Another project, the new Native Files project, has recently released two white papers authored by EDRM member Wade Peterson (of Bowman and Brooke LLP) proposing the creation and adoption of a new ENF (encapsulated native file) standard for the production of native files.

In Can Native File Productions be ENF (Enough)?, Peterson presents the conceptual framework for defining the new standard.  This white paper includes several sections, such as:

  • Background: Describes the historical background regarding traditional document productions as either paper, TIFF or PDF;
  • Executive Overview: Describes the problem (outdated standards defined almost two decades ago) and the purpose of the paper (to present a conceptual framework for defining a new, up-to-date standard that reflects “3-dimensional” native documents);
  • Challenges: A list of several challenges facing litigation support professionals today when producing documents, including these: “Courts and opposing counsel are increasingly demanding ‘native file productions’”, “Native files can be altered (either intentionally or not)” and “Native files cannot be redacted”;
  • Solution: The stated goal to develop a new standard for document productions, which addresses today’s concerns, has an open architecture to meet future requirements and is eventually adopted by courts as the legal standard;
  • Architecture: A detailed description of the architecture “framework for ‘encapsulating’ native files in sort of an envelope metaphor”, with a diagram to illustrate the framework;
  • Enhancements to the Standard: A discussion of possible enhancements that could be incorporated into the open-architecture standard;
  • Overcoming Obstacles: A discussion of potential obstacles as well as processes and tools needed to support this standard;
  • Conclusion: A summary call to construct a new document production standard to replace the standards “defined well over 20 years ago to produce documents which didn’t even exist 20 years ago”;
  • Author: A bio of the author, Wade Peterson.

In This is Just About ENF, Wade illustrates a sample ENF, describes some of its elements, and describes the operation of a basic utility to view ENF files.  It shows a sample XML representation of a sample ENF, describes Attributes, potential Vendor enhancements to ENF files, includes a detailed description of the Native Files element of the ENF, discusses Areas of Concern when dealing with native files and illustrates a very basic viewing tool, which he refers to as “viewENF”.

The two white papers reflect quite a bit of thought and effort to begin the process to create and adopt a new standard for addressing a growing problem – the production of a diverse collection of native files.  It will be interesting how the effort progresses to gain support for this proposed new standard.

So, what do you think?  Does this proposed standard appear to be a promising solution to the native file production issue?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Printed Copies of Documents Not Enough, Spoliation Sanctions Upheld for Discarding Computer – eDiscovery Case Law

On May 30, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department upheld a spoliation sanction against a plaintiff that failed to preserve electronic files and discarded his computer containing those files.

As reported in IT-Lex.org (Gross Negligence + Lack Of Litigation Hold = Spoliation Sanctions), In Harry Weiss, Inc. v. Moskowitz, a dispute involving diamond dealers and brokers, the Appellate Division upheld the defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions to the extent of precluding plaintiff from offering any evidence and/or testimony at trial in opposition to defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  As noted in the transcript:

“More than two years into this litigation, plaintiff’s bookkeeper revealed at his deposition for the first time that certain electronic files that were created to track defendants’ commissions were either “lost” or “deleted” at the end of 2007 and 2008, after a copy of the file had been printed. The bookkeeper further testified that he created and kept all of plaintiff’s records on one computer, which had been in use for the last ten years. A month later, when defendants’ attorney sought to forensically examine the computer to determine if any of the deleted files could be restored, plaintiff’s bookkeeper claimed, for the first time, that the computer was “broken” and had been thrown away in late 2009 or early 2010, after the commencement of this action. Thereafter, the bookkeeper testified that numerous documents supporting plaintiff’s claim that defendants were not entitled to commissions could not be produced because they were stored only on the discarded computer.”

The plaintiff was put on notice of its obligation to “preserve all relevant records, electronic or otherwise,” at the very latest, in July 2009, when it received defendants’ answer asserting counterclaims for commissions, so the disposition of the computer was spoliation of that data.

The plaintiff claimed that disposal of the computer did not cause defendants any prejudice because many of the files were printed prior to its disposal, but the court rejected that argument, noting that “converting the files from their native format to hard-copy form would have resulted in the loss of discoverable metadata”. “In addition, by discarding the computer after its duty to preserve had attached without giving notice to defendants, plaintiff deprived defendants of the opportunity to have their own expert examine the computer to determine if the deleted files could be restored”.

So, what do you think?  Was the sanction justified?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Free Your Mind, the Matrix Has You – eDiscovery Trends

OK, maybe it’s not The Matrix with Neo and Morpheus, but if you perform a role in eDiscovery, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Talent Task Matrix probably describes the responsibilities associated with your role in the process.

Back in February, we introduced the Talent Task Matrix as a tool collaboratively developed by EDRM’s Jobs Project Team to help hiring managers better understand the responsibilities associated with common eDiscovery roles. The Matrix maps responsibilities to the EDRM framework, so eDiscovery duties associated can be assigned to the appropriate parties.

The EDRM Talent Task Matrix Spreadsheet is available in XLSX or PDF format.  It shows the EDRM Stage and Stage Area, the Responsibility within each stage, followed by the various positions that have responsibilities within the eDiscovery life cycle.  It shows a “Yes” for each responsibility that each position participates in the responsibility.  There are 130 responsibilities listed in the Matrix, covering the entire EDRM life cycle.

Since the release of the Matrix in January 2013, it has been downloaded more than 1,000 times!  Chances are, at least some of you reading this have downloaded it.

Now, as indicated in this press release, the EDRM Jobs Team is interested in learning how the Matrix is used by people responsible for hiring and professional development in their organizations. They specifically want to know how the Matrix was used and what results were achieved.  They plan to use success stories regarding use of the Matrix to develop case studies to be posted on EDRM.net.

If you have downloaded the Matrix or know of someone who has downloaded the Matrix, EDRM would like to hear from you!  Contact Tom Gelbmann or George Socha (at mail@edrm.net) to share your experiences and results (all responses will be held in confidence).

If your organization has not yet used the Matrix, but intends to do so, you can still contact them and provide a brief summary of your plans to use the Matrix and any comments or recommendations you may have to improve on the Matrix to meet your needs.  It may not have those gun racks that appear out of nowhere, but it’s still pretty cool.

So, what do you think?  Have you used the Talent Task Matrix?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Is it OK for an eDiscovery Vendor to Work on Both Sides of a Case? – eDiscovery Best Practices

A few weeks ago, we covered a case where the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to meet and confer to establish an agreed protocol for implementing the use of predictive coding software was dismissed (without prejudice) after the defendants stated that they were prepared to meet and confer with the plaintiffs and their non-disqualified ESI consultants regarding the defendants’ predictive coding process.  The sticking point may be the ESI consultant in dispute.

As reported by Victor Li in Law Technology News (Judge Refuses to Disqualify EDD Vendor for Playing Both Sides), the defendant in Gordon v. Kaleida Health is taking its fight to the U.S. District Court to have eDiscovery vendor D4 Discovery disqualified from working on the case on behalf of the plaintiffs.  In their initial objection on June 5 and their July 12 filing, Kaleida Health claimed that New York Magistrate Judge Leslie Foschio erred and that D4 should have been disqualified.  As the article notes, “Kaleida’s attorneys at Nixon Peabody had decided to use predictive coding to go through its gigantic cache of 300,000 to 400,000 emails, and had hired D4 (in 2010) to provide scanning and coding services. In 2011, D4 entered into a contract to provide e-discovery consulting services to the plaintiffs. Despite D4’s representation that its consultants had not been involved in the project for Nixon Peabody, Kaleida and Nixon Peabody objected.”

In his ruling, Foschio ruled that there was no conflict of interest for reasons including:

  • D4’s involvement with Kaleida was limited to scanning and coding documents;
  • Kaleida failed to show that D4 had access to any confidential information;
  • D4’s duties to Kaleida were “a routine clerical function” (similar to photocopying documents) while services provided to the plaintiffs were “requiring expert knowledge or skills”;
  • D4 had only been hired to code objective information into assigned fields and was not asked to identify substantive case issues or make subjective decisions about the documents;
  • D4 had actually subcontracted its work for Kaleida to Infovision 21.

Conversely, Kaleida and its attorneys at Nixon Peabody argued that there was a confidential relationship with D4 and that D4 had access to sensitive information, arguing that the plaintiffs’ attorneys at Thomas & Solomon spoke directly to Amir Karahasanovic, the D4 employee who had handled the Kaleida job, violating that confidential relationship.

Li’s article also quotes Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) co-founder George Socha (a thought leader interviewee on this blog for the past three years), who referenced the EDRM’s Model Code of Conduct (our previous post about it here) as a means to encourage vendors to avoid these types of situations.  In Guideline 9 of Principle 3 (Conflicts of Interest) of the code, it states “Service Providers should not proceed with an engagement where one or more conflicts have been identified until those conflicts have been resolved and the resolution is adequately memorialized to the satisfaction of all parties involved.”

So, what do you think?  Are there some services or situations where it’s acceptable for an eDiscovery provider to work on both sides of a case?  Or should providers only do so if both parties agree?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily 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 Rules that Stored Communications Act Applies to Former Employee Emails – eDiscovery Case Law

In Lazette v. Kulmatycki, No. 3:12CV2416, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2013), the Stored Communications Act (SCA) applied when a supervisor reviewed his former employee’s Gmails through her company-issued smartphone; it covered emails the former employee had not yet opened but not emails she had read but not yet deleted.

When the plaintiff left her employer, she returned her company-issued Blackberry, which she believed the company would recycle and give to another employee. Over the next eighteen months, her former supervisor read 48,000 emails on the plaintiff’s personal Gmail account without her knowledge or authorization. The plaintiff also claimed her supervisor shared the contents of her emails with others. As a result, she filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the SCA, among other claims.

The SCA allows recovery where someone “(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains . . . access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.” “Electronic storage” includes “(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and (B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication.”

The defendants claimed that Kulmatycki’s review of the plaintiff’s emails did not violate the SCA for several reasons: the SCA was aimed at “‘high-tech’ criminals, such as computer hackers,”‘ that Kulmatycki had authority to access the plaintiff’s emails, that his access “did not occur via ‘a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided’ other than the company owned Blackberry,” that “the emails were not in electronic storage when Kulmatycki read them,” and that the company was exempt because “the person or entity providing an electronic communications service is exempt from the Act, because the complaint does not make clear that plaintiff’s g-mail account was separate from her company account.”

The court rejected all but one of the defendants’ arguments. The SCA’s scope extended beyond high-tech hackers, and the Gmail server was the “facility” in question, not the plaintiff’s Blackberry. The court also found that the plaintiff’s failure to delete her Gmail account from her Blackberry did not give her supervisor her implied consent to access her emails; the plaintiff’s negligence did not amount to “approval, much less authorization. There is a difference between someone who fails to leave the door locked when going out and one who leaves it open knowing someone be stopping by.” The court also found that the former employer could be held liable through respondeat superior: the actions of the supervisor could be imputed to the company.

Where the defendants scored a minor victory is in their interpretation of “storage”: any emails that the plaintiff had opened but not deleted before the defendant saw them were not being kept “for the purposes of backup protection” and thus were not protected under the SCA.

Accordingly, the court allowed the plaintiff’s SCA claim to proceed.

So, what do you think?  Should the emails have been protected under the SCA?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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

Want to Make eDiscovery Proportional? Tie it to the Amount at Stake – eDiscovery Trends

Apparently, the effect of the proposed amendments to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure approved for public comment may not be limited to just Federal courts.  They also could have a significant effect on New York’s state courts as well.

According to Brendan Pierson in the New York Law Journal (Proposal Would Tie Scope of Discovery to Amount in Controversy), the “most sweeping change would amend Rule 26(b)(1) to require that courts allow discovery that is ‘proportional to the needs of the case considering the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’”  Since New York courts “generally follow” the current federal discovery standard in which any material that could lead to admissible evidence is generally discoverable (regardless of the amount in controversy), the presumption is that they would follow the new standard as well.

If the US system is the “broadest discovery system on the planet” (according to Alvin Lindsay, a Hogan Lovells partner and an expert in discovery issues), the proposed changes would “bring discovery in the United States more in line with the rest of the world”.

The author cites the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg case as a key turning point in the number of documents preserved and produced in litigation and that growing eDiscovery costs have led to a “backlash among practitioners”.  According to experts, the proposed rules changes are “likely to gain broad support”.  “I don’t know who you’re going to get who’s going to oppose the principle of proportionality,” said Paul Sarkozi, a partner at Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt and vice-chair of the commercial litigation section of the New York State Bar Association.

However, one “possible source of opposition could be class action plaintiffs attorneys, who can sometimes benefit from the more extensive discovery available under current rules”.  It will be interesting to see if there is considerable opposition from plaintiffs’ attorneys.  For more in the article, click here.

So, what do you think?  Are you pleased or concerned with the proposed amendments?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Nominate Your Favorite Law Blog – eDiscovery Trends

If you’re reading this, you obviously read law blogs.  If you have a favorite law blog (or “blawg”, get it?), now is the time to nominate it for recognition in the ABA Journal 7th Annual Blawg 100.

On their Blawg 100 Amici page, you can complete the form to identify yourself, your employer or law school, your city and email address, the URL of the blog you wish to nominate, a link to a great 2013 post from the blog and a brief (up to 500 characters) description as to why you’re a fan of the “blawg”.  You’re also asked whether you know the “blawgger” personally (and admonished to “be honest”), whether ABA Journal can use your name and comment in their coverage and, if you follow the blogger on Twitter, describe what makes him/her stand out.  You can nominate more than one “blawg”.

ABA Journal notes that they discourage submissions from:

  • Bloggers who nominate their own blogs or nominate blogs to which they have previously contributed posts.
  • Employees of law firms who nominate blogs written by their co-workers.
  • Public relations professionals in the employ of lawyers or law firms who nominate their clients’ blogs.
  • Pairs of bloggers who have clearly entered into a quid pro quo agreement to nominate each other.

Friend-of-the-blawg briefs (i.e., to fill and submit the form) by no later than Aug. 9, 2013 to include your nomination.

As a person who coordinates a daily blog, I can appreciate what it takes to publish a blog and bring interesting topics to the reader.  So, with that in mind, here are some of the excellent blogs out there that cover various eDiscovery topics:

There’s also this little blog called eDiscoveryDaily, as well.  If you would like to nominate this one, we won’t stop you!  😉

For compilations of eDiscovery news and analysis, I’d also like to recognize Law Technology News, PinHawk Law Technology Daily Digest and Complex Discovery as excellent sources for eDiscovery information.

Our hats are off to all of those who provide eDiscovery news and analysis to the industry!  Again, if you would like to nominate any of the blogs (including, of course, eDiscoveryDaily), click here.  Deadline is August 9.

So, what do you think?  Do you have a favorite eDiscovery blog or source of information?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Plaintiffs Take the Supreme Step in Da Silva Moore – eDiscovery Case Law

As mentioned in Law Technology News (‘Da Silva Moore’ Goes to Washington), attorneys representing lead plaintiff Monique Da Silva Moore and five other employees have filed a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court arguing that New York Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck, who approved an eDiscovery protocol agreed to by the parties that included predictive coding technology, should have recused himself given his previous public statements expressing strong support of predictive coding.

Da Silva Moore and her co-plaintiffs argued in the petition that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was too deferential to Peck when denying the plaintiff’s petition to recuse him, asking the Supreme Court to order the Second Circuit to use the less deferential “de novo” standard.  As noted in the LTN article:

“The employees also cited a circuit split in how appellate courts reviewed judicial recusals, pointing out that the Seventh Circuit reviews disqualification motions de novo. Besides resolving the circuit split, the employees asked the Supreme Court to find that the Second Circuit’s standard was incorrect under the law. Citing federal statute governing judicial recusals, the employees claimed that the law required motions for disqualification to be reviewed objectively and that a deferential standard flew in the face of statutory intent. “Rather than dispelling the appearance of a self-serving judiciary, deferential review exacerbates the appearance of impropriety that arises from judges deciding their own cases and thus undermines the purposes of [the statute],” wrote the employees in their cert petition.”

This battle over predictive coding and Judge Peck’s participation has continued for 15 months.  For a recap of the events during that time, click here.

So, what do you think?  Is this a “hail mary” for the plaintiffs and will it succeed?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

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

Appellate Court Denies Sanctions for Routine Deletion of Text Messages – eDiscovery Case Law

In PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, No. 684 WDA 2012, 2013 Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. Ct. May 24, 2013), the appellate court denied a motion for spoliation sanctions where the defendants routinely deleted text messages and other data to “clean up” their personal electronic devices: the volume of messages and limited amount of phone storage made it difficult to retain all data and still use the phone for messaging.

Here, the plaintiff filed claims of conversion, breach of the duty of loyalty, and breach of fiduciary duty against its former at-will employees and their new competing business. The trial court dismissed all claims at summary judgment. It also denied PTSI’s motion seeking sanctions for spoliation, because the deletion of electronically stored information, including text messages, was not relevant to the summary judgment decision.

During discovery, PTSI filed a motion seeking sanctions based on its two former employees’ deletion of electronic records from their computers and phones, including text messages. The company claimed the information was “vital to the prosecution of this case” and could not be “feasibly reconstructed or retrieved without enormous time and expense to PTSI, if at all.”

Under Pennsylvania law, the court had to evaluate three factors to determine the appropriate sanction: “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.”

To determine the level of fault, the court considered the extent of the duty to preserve the evidence, based on whether litigation is foreseeable and whether the evidence might be prejudicial to the opposing party, and whether the evidence was destroyed in bad faith. The court also considered proportionality in making decisions, including five factors spelled out in the comments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure:

  • the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues and the amounts at stake;
  • the relevance of electronically stored information and its importance to the court’s adjudication in the given case;
  • the cost, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal with electronically stored information;
  • the ease of producing electronically stored information and whether substantially similar information is available with less burden; and
  • any other factors relevant under the circumstances.

Here, the amount in controversy and the importance of the issues involving the data did not support awarding a discovery sanction. Moreover, PTSI could not show that its former employees’ “innocent clean up of personal electronic devices to allow them to function was unusual, unreasonable or improper under the circumstances.” Because the defendants “routinely deleted text messages, often on a daily basis, so as not to unduly encumber their iPhones” and because of “the volume of text messages that are frequently exchanged by cell phone users and the limited amount of storage on cell phones, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to save all text messages and to continue to use the phone for messaging.” Furthermore, the order of preservation was entered well after any relevant data would have already been created and deleted. In addition, similar information was available from other sources and custodians; the forensic examiner in the case unearthed more than 1,000 e-mails from the employees’ computers. Finally, any spoliation inference could not defeat the summary judgment motion.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning and found no abuse of discretion.

So, what do you think?  Should the sanctions have been granted?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: Applied Discovery (free subscription required).  For eDiscovery news and best practices, check out the Applied Discovery Blog here.

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