Close
Enter your
text here

Spoliation

eDiscovery Case Law: District Court Judge Affirms $1 Million Sanction to Pappas in Victor Stanley
 

One of the first posts ever published in eDiscovery Daily was this one, where defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.  Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”

Upon appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating: “[T]he court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings.”

Then, in January of this year, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”  As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs, including the costs for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant, finding that “Defendants’ first spoliation efforts corresponded with the beginning of litigation” and that “Defendants’ misconduct affected the entire discovery process since the commencement of this case.”

Naturally, the award was appealed.

On Tuesday, June 14, Judge Garbis affirmed Judge Grimm’s prior Report and Recommendation ordering the award.  Judge Garbis noted that “The Court’s stated standard for includible fees and costs is consistent with the purpose of designing a sanction that will ‘restore the prejudiced party to the same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of evidence by the opposing party.’  Judge Garbis discussed and rejected all of Creative Pipe’s objections as to the amount of the award, adopting Judge Grimm’s findings that all of these fees were in fact related to the discovery malfeasance.

With Creative Pipe having already paid a total of $478,409.92, a balance remains under the order of $571,440.12, which concluded with Judge Garbis stating that “Defendants shall, by July 15, 2011, pay Plaintiff…the balance due”.  No mention of Judge Grimm’s original automatic jail sanction for non-payment of the fees, though, Judge Garbis originally said he might impose jail sanctions for non-payment.

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay the rest?  Appeal to the Circuit Court?  Could he still go to jail?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Avoiding eDiscovery Nightmares: 10 Ways CEOs Can Sleep Easier
 

I found this article in the CIO Central blog on Forbes.com from Robert D. Brownstone – it’s a good summary of issues for organizations to consider so that they can avoid major eDiscovery nightmares.  The author counts down his top ten list David Letterman style (clever!) to provide a nice easy to follow summary of the issues.  Here’s a summary recap, with my ‘two cents’ on each item:

10. Less is more: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2005 in the Arthur Andersen case that a “retention” policy is actually a destruction policy.  It’s important to routinely dispose of old data that is no longer needed to have less data subject to discovery and just as important to know where that data resides.  My two cents: A data map is a great way to keep track of where the data resides.

9. Sing Kumbaya: They may speak different languages, but you need to find a way to bridge the communication gap between Legal and IT to develop an effective litigation-preparedness program.  My two cents: Require cross-training so that each department can understand the terms and concepts important to the other.  And, don’t forget the records management folks!

8. Preserve or Perish: Assign the litigation hold protocol to one key person, either a lawyer or a C-level executive to decide when a litigation hold must be issued.  Ensure an adequate process and memorialize steps taken – and not taken.  My two cents: Memorialize is underlined because an organization that has a defined process and the documentation to back it up is much more likely to be given leeway in the courts than a company that doesn’t document its decisions.

7. Build the Three-Legged Stool: A successful eDiscovery approach involves knowledgeable people, great technology, and up-to-date written protocols.  My two cents: Up-to-date written protocols are the first thing to slide when people get busy – don’t let it happen.

6. Preserve, Protect, Defend: Your techs need the knowledge to avoid altering metadata, maintain chain-of-custody information and limit access to a working copy for processing and review.  My two cents: A good review platform will assist greatly in all three areas.

5. Natives Need Not Make You Restless: Consider exchanging files to be produced in their original/”native” formats to avoid huge out-of-pocket costs of converting thousands of files to image format.  My two cents: Be sure to address how redactions will be handled as some parties prefer to image those while others prefer to agree to alter the natives to obscure that information.

4. Get M.A.D.?  Then Get Even: Apply the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) principle to agree with the other side to take off the table costly volumes of data, such as digital voicemails and back-up data created down the road.  My two cents: That’s assuming, of course, you have the same levels of data.  If one party has a lot more data than the other party, there may be no incentive for that party to agree to concessions.

3. Cooperate to Cull Aggressively and to Preserve Clawback Rights: Setting expectations regarding culling efforts and reaching a clawback agreement with opposing counsel enables each side to cull more aggressively to reduce eDiscovery costs.  My two cents: Some parties will agree on search terms up front while others will feel that gives away case strategy, so the level of cooperation may vary from case to case.

2. QA/QC: Employ Quality Assurance (QA) tests throughout review to ensure a high accuracy rate, then perform Quality Control (QC) testing before the data goes out the door, building time in the schedule for that QC testing.  Also, consider involving a search-methodology expert.  My two cents: I cannot stress that last point enough – the ability to illustrate how you got from the large collection set to the smaller production set will be imperative to responding to any objections you may encounter to the produced set.

1. Never Drop Your Laptop Bag and Run: Dig in, learn as much as you can and start building repeatable, efficient approaches.  My two cents: It’s the duty of your attorneys and providers to demonstrate competency in eDiscovery best practices.  How will you know whether they have or not unless you develop that competency yourself?

So, what do you think?  Are there other ways for CEOs to avoid eDiscovery nightmares?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: If You Use Auto-Delete, Know When to Turn It Off
 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), adopted in 2006, is known as the “safe harbor” rule.  It provides that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.”

Let’s face it, every time we turn on our computers, we overwrite data.  And, the mere opening of files (without changing any data) can change the metadata of a file – for example, simply opening a Microsoft Access® database changes the last modified date of the Access file, even if no records are changed.  If there wasn’t some measure of “safe harbor” protection, an organization facing litigation might find it very difficult to conduct business during the case.

While it’s not always clear to what extent “safe harbor” protection extends, one case from a few years ago, Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Washington Metrop. Trans. Auth., D.D.C. June 2007, seemed to indicate where it does NOT extend – auto-deletion of emails.  In this case, the defendant failed to suspend auto-delete on its email system when their preservation obligation commenced, resulting in emails only being available on back-up tapes.  Their argument that the tapes were “not reasonably accessible” was denied by the court, describing their request as “chutzpah”.

Of course, email, like any other type of ESI, should be subject to document retention and destruction policies and old emails should be purged when they reach the end of the retention period.  Microsoft Outlook® provides an option via its Auto Archive function to delete the emails instead of archiving them.  You can select this setting for all emails (via the Tools, Options menu, Other tab) or for selected folders (by right-clicking on them, selecting Properties and then selecting the AutoArchive tab).  That’s at the client level.

But, most organizations use Outlook through Exchange.  Exchange Manager enables administrators to set auto delete policies for the email user population to manage retention and destruction of emails, thus being able to disable  the auto delete function for users when the duty to preserve arises.  If your organization uses auto-delete, it’s important to have a policy in place for disabling auto-delete for litigation, whether at the Outlook client level, the Exchange level or with any other email system.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization use auto-deletion of emails?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Written Litigation Hold Notice Not Required

The Pension Committee case was one of the most important cases of 2010 (or any year, for that matter).  So, perhaps it’s not surprising that it is starting to become frequently cited by those looking for sanction for failure to issue a written litigation hold.

In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC, No. 08-CV-561S(F), (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011), a U.S. District Court in the Western District of New York declined to follow the Pension Committee decision in the Southern District of New York to the extent that the Pension Committee decision held “that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

Steuben Foods alleged that Country Gourmet breached its exclusive supply contract with Steuben when County Gourmet sold all its assets except the supply contract to Campbell Soup. Campbell sought sanctions against Steuben when several emails were not produced by Steuben and Steuben conceded that its litigation hold procedure had not included a written notice. Steuben’s corporate counsel had orally directed each of eight managers and corporate officers to identify all electronically stored information, including paper documents and email communications, pertaining to Country Gourmet or Campbell and not to discard or delete or otherwise destroy such documents pending the litigation.

Campbell pointed to the Pension Committee decision, Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), “in which the court found that the absence of a written litigation hold notice supported its conclusion that plaintiffs had been grossly negligent in their obligations to preserve relevant electronically stored documents and that plaintiffs’ document production failures, coupled with the absence of a timely written litigation hold, permitted the inference that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost as a result.”

The court declined to infer from the absence of a written litigation hold, as the Pension Committee court did, that relevant documents were culpably destroyed or lost:

“Accordingly, the court in this case declines to hold that implementation of a written litigation hold notice is required in order to avoid an inference that relevant evidence has been presumptively destroyed by the party failing to implement such written litigation hold.”

The court noted that the relatively small size of Steuben with 400 employees “lends itself to a direct oral communication of the need to preserve documents relevant to Plaintiff’s case” and was a reason “why a written litigation hold is not essential to avoid potential sanctions for spoliation.” In any event, according to the court, Campbell was not prejudiced by any failure of Steuben to produce email because Country Gourmet provided copies of the email to Campbell and Campbell could show no prejudice resulting from any claimed negligence of Steuben in not having a written litigation hold.

So, what do you think?  Should a written litigation hold be required in every case?  Would that have made a difference in this one?  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.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Checking for Malware is the First Step to eDiscovery Processing
 

A little over a month ago, I noted that we hadn’t missed a (business) day yet in publishing a post for the blog.  That streak almost came to an end last week.

As I often do in the early mornings before getting ready for work, I spent some time searching for articles to read and identifying potential blog topics and found a link on a site related to “New Federal Rules”.  Curious, I clicked on it and…up popped a pop-up window from our virus checking software (AVG Anti-Virus, or so I thought) that the site had found a file containing a “trojan horse” program.

The odd thing about the pop-up window is that there was no “Fix” button to fix the trojan horse.  There were only choices to “Ignore” the virus or “Move it to the Vault”.  So, I chose the best available option to move it to the vault.

Then, all hell broke loose.

I received error messages that my hard drive had corrupted, that my RAM was maxed – you name it.

Turns out the trojan horse has provided a “rogue” pop-up window, designed to look like AVG Anti-Virus, to dupe me into activating the program by clicking on a button.  If you studied the Trojan War in school, you know that’s why they call it a “trojan horse” – it fools you into letting it into your system.

While its common to refer to all types of malware as “viruses”, a computer virus is only one type of malware.  Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware, dishonest adware, scareware, crimeware, most rootkits, and other malicious and unwanted software or program.  A report from Symantec published in 2008 suggested that "the release rate of malicious code and other unwanted programs may be exceeding that of legitimate software applications”.

I’ve worked with a lot of clients who don’t understand why it can take time to get ESI processed and loaded into their review platform.  Depending on the types of files, several steps can be required to get the files ready to review, including “unarchiving” of container files, OCR (of image only files) and, of course, indexing of the files for searchability (among other possible steps).  But, the first step is to scan the files for viruses and other malware that may be infecting the files.  If malware is found in any files, the files have to be identified.  Then, those files will either be isolated and logged as exceptions or the virus software will attempt to remove the malware.  While it may seem logical that the malware should always be removed, doing so is technically altering the file, so counsel need to agree that malware removal is acceptable.  Either way, the malware needs to be addressed so that it doesn’t affect the entire collection.

As for me, as soon as the infection was evident, I turned my laptop off and turned it over to our support department at Trial Solutions.  By the end of the day, I had it back, good as new!  Thanks, Tony Cullather!

So, what do you think?  How do you handle malware in your collections?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: 2011 eDiscovery Errors Survey
 

As noted in Legal IT Professionals on Friday, LDM Global on Friday announced the results of its 2011 eDiscovery Errors survey. The company asked a selection of industry professionals their views on which errors they experienced most often during the discovery process. Results were collected from across the USA, Europe and Australia.

According to Scott Merrick, LDM Global Marketing Director and survey author, “Our goal was to find out what the real, day to day issues and problems are around the discovery process.”  He also noted that “Of particular interest was the ongoing challenge of good communication. Technology has not solved that challenge and it remains at the forefront of where mistakes are made.”

The respondents of the survey were broken down into the following groups: Litigation Support Professionals 47%, Lawyers 30%, Paralegals 11%, IT Professionals 9% and Others 3%.  Geographically, the United States and Europe had 46% of the respondents each, with the remaining 8% of respondents coming from Australia.  LDM Global did not identify the total number of respondents to the survey.

For each question about errors, respondents were asked to classify the error as “frequently occurs”, “occasionally occurs”, “not very common” or “never occurs”.  Based on responses, the most common errors are:

  • Failure to Effectively Communicate across Teams: 50% of the respondents identified this error as one that frequently occurs
  • An Inadequate Data Retention Policy: 47% of the respondents identified this error as one that frequently occurs
  • Not Collecting all Pertinent Data: 41% of the respondents identified this error as one that frequently occurs
  • Failure to Perform Critical Quality Control (i.e., sampling): 40% of the respondents identified this error as one that frequently occurs
  • Badly Thought Out, or Badly Implemented, Policy: 40% of the respondents identified this error as one that frequently occurs

Perhaps one of the most surprising results is that only 14% of respondents identified Spoliation of evidence, or the inability to preserve relevant emails as an error that frequently occurs.  So, why are there so many cases in which sanctions have been issued for that very issue?  Interesting…

For complete survey results, go to LDMGlobal.com.

So, what do you think?  What are the most common eDiscovery errors that your organization has encountered?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Conclusion of Case Does Not Preclude Later Sanctions

In Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2011), the defendant in a product liability action that had been settled over a year earlier was sanctioned for “blatant discovery abuses” prior to the settlement. Defendant was ordered to add $250,000 to its settlement with plaintiff, to provide a copy of the court’s order to every plaintiff in every lawsuit against defendant for the past two years or else forfeit an additional $500,000 “purging” sanction, and to include the order in its first responsive pleading in every lawsuit for the next five years in which defendant became involved.

Defendant, a manufacturer of gasoline containers, was named in several product liability lawsuits, including this case in which plaintiff alleged that her husband’s death was caused in part by the lack of a flame arrestor on defendant’s gas cans. The jury in plaintiff’s case returned a verdict for defendant after counsel for defendant argued that “science shows” that flame arrestors did not work. The case was settled after the jury verdict for an undisclosed amount, but two years later, counsel for plaintiff sought sanctions and to have the case reopened after learning in another case against defendant that while the gas can lawsuits were underway, defendant had been instructing its employees to destroy email.

The court described defendant’s failure to implement a litigation hold as gas can cases were filed. A single employee met with other employees to ask them to look for documents, but he did not have any electronic searches made for documents and he did not consult with defendant’s information technology department on how to retrieve electronic documents.

The court held that defendant willfully violated the discovery order in the case by not producing key documents such as a handwritten note indicating a desire to install flame arrestors on gas cans and an email noting that the technology for flame arrestors existed given the common use of flame arrestors in the marine industry. “Any competent electronic discovery effort would have located this email,” according to the court, through a key word search. Defendant’s employee in charge of discovery did not conduct a key word search and, despite acknowledging that he was as computer “illiterate as they get,” did not seek help from defendant’s information technology department, which was routinely sending out instructions to employees to delete email and rotating backup tapes every two weeks while the litigation was underway.

The court declined to reopen the case since it had been closed for a year. However, based on its knowledge of the confidential settlement of the parties, the court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff an additional $250,000 as a civil contempt sanction to match the minimum amount that the settlement would have been if plaintiff had been provided documents withheld by defendant. The court also ordered a “civil purging sanction” of $500,000 which defendant could avoid upon showing proof that a copy of the court’s decision had been provided to every plaintiff in a lawsuit against defendant for the past two years. The court added a requirement that defendant include a copy of the court’s opinion in its first pleading in any lawsuit for the next five years in which defendant became a party.

As Yogi Berra would say, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over”.

So, what do you think?  Should cases be re-opened after they’re concluded for discovery violations?  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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Destroy Data, Pay $1 Million, Lose Case

A federal judge in Chicago has levied sanctions against Rosenthal Collins Group LLC and granted a default judgment to the defendant for misconduct in a patent infringement case, also ordering the Chicago-based futures broker’s counsel to pay “the costs and attorneys fees incurred in litigating this motion” where plaintiff’s agent modified metadata related to relevant source code and wiped several relevant disks and devices prior to their production and where the court found counsel participated in “presenting misleading, false information, materially altered evidence and willful non-compliance with the Court’s orders.”

In Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, No. 05 C 4088, 2011 WL 722467 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2011), U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman assessed a sanction of $1 million to Rosenthal Collins (RCG) and granted defendant/counter-plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (TT) motion for evidentiary sanctions and default judgment.  Much of the reason was due to the actions of RCG’s agent, Walter Buist.  Here’s why:

  • During Buist’s deposition, he admitted to “turning back the clock” to change the “last modified” date on the previously modified source code to make it appear that the modifications had occurred much earlier.  Despite clear evidence of these facts, RCG continued to deny them, even calling the claims “libelous,” “audacious,” and “Oliver Stone-esque.”
  • Buist also later admitted “wiping” six of seven zip disks that originally contained the relevant source code.  While he did not admit wiping the seventh disk, it was also wiped, and the Court found that it was “impossible to believe that it is merely coincidence that the seventh disk happened to be wiped on May 2, 2006, which just happened to be the same day that TT was scheduled to inspect it.”
  • The Court found that here was evidence that “virtually every piece of media ordered produced by the Court in May 2007 and July 2008 was wiped, altered, or destroyed.”
  • Despite RCG’s (and its counsel’s) attempts to distance itself from “its own agent, employed for the purposes of pursuing this litigation” and disavowing any “actual knowledge” of wrongdoing, Buist was RCG’s agent and, therefore, RCG was bound by Buist’s behavior and actions.
  • Even if RCG and its counsel had no knowledge of the destruction of the evidence, the destruction might have been avoided if RCG had complied with the Court’s orders in a timely manner to produce the materials and/or preserved the evidence by taking custody of it.

So, what do you think?  Should parties and their counsel be liable for the actions of an agent on their behalf?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Deliberately Produce Wrong Cell Phone, Get Sanctioned
 

In Moreno v. Ostly, No. A127780, (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2011), the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of monetary sanctions imposed against the plaintiff and her law firm in the amount of $13,500 for counsel and plaintiff’s discovery misconduct related to the preservation of text messages.

The plaintiff sued her former law firm employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and failure to pay back wages.  She claimed that a partner at the firm “forced himself on her sexually” on a daily basis and that she was fired when she notified the partner that she wished to sever the “intimate aspect of their relationship.”  In discovery, defendants sought copies of relevant e-mails and text messages between the plaintiff and the partner.  After the parties' meet and confer efforts failed, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce her personal computer and cell phone for inspection.  The inspection revealed that the cell phone produced was different from the one plaintiff had during her course of employment.  When questioned regarding the discrepancy, plaintiff’s counsel responded that the defendants would have to undertake further discovery efforts to determine what happened to the relevant equipment.  The plaintiff’s attorney conceded that many of the text messages on the prior phone had been used against the defendants before the EEOC, but had not been preserved prior to the disposal of the cell phone.

The defendants filed a motion for terminating and monetary sanctions or, in the alternative, a willful suppression of evidence jury instruction.  The trial court awarded monetary sanctions, finding the plaintiff and her counsel deliberately withheld the fact that the plaintiff failed to preserve her cell phone data, causing opposing counsel and the court to expend unnecessary resources.  The court found plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct willful and his explanation citing a conflict between the duty of loyalty to the client and the duty of candor to opposing counsel and the court “not very credible.”

The court of appeals concluded the trial court's award of monetary sanctions was supported by substantial evidence, and was well within the discretion of the court.

So, what do you think?  Are you aware of any other blatant examples of evasive discovery?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case Summary Source: eDiscovery Case Law Update, by Littler Mendelson P.C.

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.

eDiscovery Case Law: Spoliate Evidence, Don’t Go to Jail, but Pay a Million Dollars
 

As previously referenced in eDiscovery Daily, defendant Mark Pappas, President of Creative Pipe, Inc., was ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm to  “be imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years, unless and until he pays to Plaintiff the attorney's fees and costs that will be awarded to Plaintiff as the prevailing party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).”.  Judge Grimm found that “Defendants…deleted, destroyed, and otherwise failed to preserve evidence; and repeatedly misrepresented the completeness of their discovery production to opposing counsel and the Court.”

However, ruling on the defendants’ appeal, District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis declined to adopt the order regarding incarceration, stating: “[T]he court does not find it appropriate to Order Defendant Pappas incarcerated for future possible failure to comply with his obligation to make payment of an amount to be determined in the course of further proceedings.”

So, how much is he ordered to pay?  Now we know.

On January 24, 2011, Judge Grimm entered an order awarding a total of $1,049,850.04 in “attorney’s fees and costs associated with all discovery that would not have been un[der]taken but for Defendants' spoliation, as well as the briefings and hearings regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.”  Judge Grimm explained, “the willful loss or destruction of relevant evidence taints the entire discovery and motions practice.” So, the court found that “Defendants’ first spoliation efforts corresponded with the beginning of litigation” and that “Defendants’ misconduct affected the entire discovery process since the commencement of this case.”

As a result, the court awarded $901,553.00 in attorney’s fees and $148,297.04 in costs.  Those costs included $95,969.04 for the Plaintiff’s computer forensic consultant that was “initially hired . . . to address the early evidence of spoliation by Defendants and to prevent further destruction of data”.  The Plaintiff’s forensic consultant also provided processing services and participated in the preparation of plaintiff’s search and collection protocol, which the court found “pertained to Defendants’ spoliation efforts.”

So, what do you think?  Will the defendant pay?  Or will he be subject to possible jail time yet again?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.